Econ Elites

'Good' Depression May Avert 'Great' One

2008-08-13T20:40:00.000-07:00

by Paul B. Farrell

Seven reasons a 'good' depression beats a new Great Depression

Yes, a depression. Spelled: D-e-p-r-e-s-s-i-o-n. Wake up America, recessions don't work any more. Why?

Get serious folks. We had a 30-month recession not long ago. Eight years later the market's still barely at its 2000 peak, a loser. Worse, we're back in a new recession. But Washington politicians are keeping it a secret, feeding us doctored feel-good statistics as legendary political historian Kevin Phillips wrote in "Numbers Racket: Why the Economy is Worse Than We Know."

So we blindly refuse to bite the bullet and stop our out-of-control spiral into collapse. America needs a big wake-up call ... and it's coming soon, whether you like it or not!

Last November we posted "17 reasons America needs a recession." Today it's far worse, and getting worse still.

Most economists predict it'll take till 2010 to burn off our excess housing inventory. RGE Monitor say Fannie and Freddie bailouts aren't working; they'll soon be "profoundly insolvent" and need to be "nationalized." Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson has no long-term plans, he's a caretaker, plugging holes, anxious to get back to Wall Street's money machine, running out the clock till he turns over the catastrophe he enflamed to a new bunch of politicians and their armies of 42,000 greedy lobbyists.

Lessons learned? Zero. Why? Wall Street, Washington and Corporate America are a one-trick pony with one narrow-minded strategy: Economic g-r-o-w-t-h, bull markets, megabonuses. In good times they tout "free markets." But when greed bombs, these big babies throw free market "principles" under the "Reagan Revolution" bus as their lobbyists go whining to Congress for megabillion taxpayer bailouts and access at the Fed casino's discount window to siphon off more taxpayer money. What hypocritical wimps!

Wall Street and its co-conspirators are doing such a miserable job, America needs a new strategy: Stop all the short-term "hole-plugging." Let go and let an old-fashioned "Good Depression" do the job that our happy-talking leaders refuse to do. Let it clean house and reawaken America to basic values. Otherwise a "Good Depression" will turn into a new "Great Depression."

Here are seven strong reasons favoring this alternative strategy:

1. Yes, an Honest Diagnosis: Soul Sickness in American Capitalism

America's problems are not the economy, not markets, nor even politics. The endless bickering campaign is distracting us from facing our real long-term problems. Yes, our economic pains are real, but they're just symptoms. Since 2000, America has seen a relentless, sickening overdose of bad news: stupidity, deceit, corruption and even evil behavior. Americans are n-u-m-b, suffering post-traumatic shock syndrome.

The real problem is our thinking, our brains -- something deep in our cosmic soul, says Jack Bogle's "The Battle for the Soul of Capitalism." We lost our values, our moral compass.

2. Yes, Time to Admit This Really Is Like the 1930's Great Depression

Comparing today with the Great Depression has become common sport. In a Newsweek special "Seeing Shades of the 1930s," Daniel Gross writes: 75 years ago "Wall Street, after two terms of a business-friendly Republican president, self-immolated on a pyre of greed, incompetence and excessive optimism."

Like Dr. Scott Peck says in "The Road Less Traveled:" "Life is a series of problems. Do we want to moan about them or solve them?" We need to grow up, stop whining, roll our sleeves up and solve real problems.

3. Yes, a Good Depression Would Reveal Self-Destruct Bubble-Thinking

In a recent Atlantic article "Irrational Exuberance" author Robert Shiller warns: "Bubbles are primarily social phenomena. Until we understand and address the psychology that fuels them, they're going to keep forming."

Housing inflated 85% in a decade: "Historically unprecedented ... no rational basis for it." Today there's a huge excess housing inventory, higher-credit mortgages are now in jeopardy, the write-offs are now projected at $2 trillion -- on top of a $3 trillion war, $10 trillion federal budget, and more.

Bubble-thinking is contagious; it will trigger a pandemic. Shiller says "few people seem immune to boom thinking. The recent bubble grew so large partly because the very people responsible for the financial system's oversight came to share the general public's rosy expectations."

Unfortunately our leaders are still ignoring the underlying problem: Nothing is being done about "our psychological vulnerability to bubble-thinking."

Shiller then warns of a new megameltdown: "We recently lived through two epidemics of excessive financial optimism. I believe we are close to a third episode, only this one will spread irrational pessimism and distrust -- not exuberance ... our economic problems will become much worse than they need to be, and our social problems will multiply."

4. Yes, a Good Depression Will Stir Outrage, Force Real Reforms

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Jim Grant, Forbes columnist and respected editor of the Interest Rate Observer, framed his title as a question: "Why No Outrage?" Why? He notes: "Through history, outrageous financial behavior has been met with outrage. But today Wall Street's damaging recklessness has been met with near-silence, from a too tolerant populace."

Tolerant? No, n-u-m-b! "Human progress seems to be the likeliest culprit." Fear-driven, we prefer the devil we know to a new one. Yet while "Wall Street may be sweating to fill out this year's bonus pool," Grant worries that Wall Street will run "itself and the rest of the American financial system right over a cliff." A Good Depression brings outrage.

5. Yes, Good Depression Forces Wall Street to Think Outside the Box

In a great Bloomberg Markets feature, "No Easy Fix," we're told Wall Street's "profit formula has hit a wall ... Wall Street's money-making machine is broken and efforts to repair it after the biggest losses in history are likely to undermine profits for years to come."

Merrill Lynch is a good example: It is selling 615 million new shares, a 38% dilution, while hanging on to "$30.6 billion in crummy derivatives," says Dennis Berman in the Wall Street Journal. Merrill's stock is about half the 2004 price of $55. Merrill "needs to come up with $2.8 billion in new profit, not sales, to get back to its 2004 per share earnings levels. That's $43,000 in new profit for each of Merrill's 65,000 employees."

Unfortunately, Merrill's cash cows (off-balance sheet gimmicks, derivatives, repackaged asset-backed securitization) that made megabucks the past decade "have largely disappeared. That puts the burden on Merrill's old-line businesses -- brokerage, asset management and investment banking."

Solutions? Cut costs, steal market share or "gradually start to take on more risk on Merrill's trading desks, which produced the bulk of the $30 billion in losses the past 12 months."

Warning: Expect more desperate, high-risk and stupid moves: A new BusinessWeek report says Wall Street's already lobbying Congress to raid America's $2.3 trillion "pension honey pot." Warning: These are the same greed-is-good Gordon Gekkos that brought us the last two rapid-fire meltdowns. Stop them before they turn the next into a Great Depression.

6. Yes, a Good Depression Can Prevent America's Decline and Fall

In "The Price of Liberty: Paying for America's Wars," Robert Hormats, Goldman Sachs international vice chairman, traces America's wartime financing from the Revolutionary War to present. Today we're "relying on faith over experience, hoping that sustained growth will erase deficits and that the ballooning costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will be manageable in the coming decades without difficult reforms."

Former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker put it in more ominous terms: "There are striking similarities between America's current situation and that of another great power from the past: Rome." They fell for three reasons "worth remembering: declining moral values and political civility at home, an overconfident and overextended military in foreign lands, and fiscal irresponsibility by the central government."

And Pulitzer Prize winning geographer Jared Diamond takes an even broader historical view in "Collapse: How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail:" Many "civilizations share a sharp curve of decline. Indeed, a society's demise may begin only a decade or two after it reaches its peak population, wealth and power." He draws historical parallels with America in the past decade.

Warning: Wall Street's next meltdown won't be a mere statistical recession. Our monetary system, our financial system and our tax base are burning out. Like our overextended military, we are handicapped in our ability to face new threats, much as were Rome, the Mayans and other great civilizations.

7. Yes, a Good Depression Will Shock America's Warring Soul

President Bush said he's a "war president." The American economy is a war economy driven by our warring soul. We spend 54% of the tax dollar on war, 47% of the world's total military spending. A half century ago President Eisenhower warned of this "military industrial complex" that's running America into bankruptcy.

Today, our economy thrives on war and disasters, generating such "spectacular profits that many people around the world" are convinced America's "rich and powerful must be deliberately causing catastrophes so that they can exploit them" says Naomi Klein in "Shock Doctrine."

Klein's snapshot of Wall Street's soul is disturbing: "An economic system that requires constant growth, while bucking almost all serious attempts at environmental regulation, generates a steady stream of disasters all on its own, whether military, economical or financial. The appetite for easy, short profits offered by purely speculative investment has turned the stock, currency and real estate markets into crisis-creation machines"

Pray for a Good Depression ... before they trigger another Great Depression.

Some Live Without Credit Cards - Could You?

2008-08-13T20:35:00.000-07:00

by LaRita Heet

Is there life without credit cards? And if so, is it worth living?

In today's instant gratification world, the thought of forgoing credit cards in favor of a cash-only lifestyle seems as foreign as mailing a handwritten letter through the post office: We know some people do it, but it's hard to understand why.

Yet there are those who have declared, "Enough is enough!" and dedicated themselves to lives sans credit cards.

According to the Fair Isaac Corp., creator of the popular FICO credit scoring model, about 20 to 25 million people in the United States do not have any credit. An additional 30 to 35 million U.S. residents have a minimal amount of credit history, according to Fair Isaac statistics. These figures mean that approximately one in five Americans do not have access to traditional credit.

The Federal Reserve Board Survey of Consumer Finances of 2004 showed that as many as one in four U.S. consumers live without credit cards. This triennial study of approximately 4,500 respondents showed that 74.9 percent of those surveyed had credit cards. José Garcia, senior researcher at Demos, a national, nonpartisan, public policy research organization, divides noncardholders into two groups: those who are unable to obtain credit cards, and those who choose not to use them.

No Credit, No Choice

According to Garcia, many of those without credit cards simply do not qualify for credit due to bad credit, no credit, immigration status or another reason.

Gail Cunningham, senior director of public relations for the National Foundation for Credit Counseling (NFCC), says such mixed feelings over credit cards are common. When, during NFCC debt-counseling sessions, debt-ridden consumers -- many of whom have already had their charging privileges suspended by the lender due to non-payment -- are asked to cut up their credit cards, the reactions are often extreme. "Some people are like, 'Give me those scissors! I never want to see plastic again,' while others will clutch one of their cards close to their heart and say, 'I loved this card,'" says Cunningham.

No Credit by Choice

Fifty-eight percent of credit cardholding households surveyed in the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances had balances on their cards, and until a few years ago, J.D. Roth and Ashkan Amouzegar were among them. Roth, 39, of Portland, Ore., has charted his foray into a credit cardless lifestyle on his popular personal finance blog, Get Rich Slowly.

Amouzegar, 30, a Portland, Ore., resident and business consultant in merchant financial services, made the decision to stop using credit cards two years ago. Though the anti-credit card crowd decline plastic for reasons ranging from anti-debt religious convictions to extreme wealth (and lack of "need" for credit), Roth and Amouzegar stopped using credit cards to help rein in their spending habits and control their finances.

Amouzegar -- who once had 12 credit cards -- used to think nothing of using his plastic to buy his friends rounds of drinks and expensive dinners. Once, he confesses, he even took a monthlong trip to Paris with a friend -- and the entire trip was charged on his credit card.

"Through college and after, I used credit cards religiously and part of the problem was my irresponsibility of using it incorrectly. Most people, I think, don't view credit cards as a loan from the bank, but as extra income, and I viewed it as, 'Oh, my Citibank has a $5,000 limit' -- I thought it meant, 'I have $5,000 to spend now,'" says Amouzegar.

Amouzegar, now only two years away from being completely debt-free, chose to not only discontinue using his cards but to cancel all the accounts, including his "emergency card." The downside of no credit cards is that, even though financial experts advise consumers to save from three to six months' worth of income in an emergency savings fund, Amouzegar says, "Well, for a lot of people, that's not realistic. If there is a major car repair or something happens, what do you do if you don't have that emergency card? Knock on wood, I haven't been in that situation yet, but you never know when your refrigerator is going to go out. You never know when your car's going to blow up, or that you need to fly somewhere due to a family emergency."

NFCC's Cunningham agrees. "None of us has a very well-polished crystal ball to know what tomorrow's going to hold, and this person not using credit might think, 'I don't care; I'm not going to need credit in the future,' but we really don't know that," she says.

Like most non-credit cardholders, Amouzegar uses his Visa-logo debit card in those situations that traditionally demand a credit card: renting a car, booking a hotel room, purchasing airline tickets and making online purchases.

He has run into occasional glitches renting cars with his debit card, as on a recent vacation. "The downside was, when I went to Maui, they would have done a charge authorization on a credit card, but since I didn't have a credit card, they did it on my debit card, so they basically held $250 until I returned the car. So that tied up $250 out of my checking account."

Turned Off

In 1998, GetRichSlowly's Roth paid off his high-interest credit card debts with a lower interest rate home equity loan and now pays a single monthly payment. "When I did that, I made a vow to myself -- and I promised my wife -- that I was going to cut up my credit cards, and I did," says Roth. "It's perfectly possible to live a happy life without credit cards. They're not a requirement. It seems to me that in our society, we get hung up on the fact that we must have credit cards, but it's just not true."

"The reality is that the practices of credit card issuers can be harsh on individuals," Demos' Garcia says. "It is those types of practices -- tricks and traps -- that I think will stop consumers. I think we're seeing it more now due to that -- that people, after a bad experience with a credit card, have stopped using them."

Although it's easy to blame the banks for high credit card bills, skyrocketing interest rates, and never-decreasing card balances, Amouzegar says that while card-issuing banks may be "crafty," they are not dishonest. Instead, it's the fault of the cardholder when debts get out of control. "Those people might just be making minimum payments on a really high interest rate. I would question, 'How did that interest rate get sky-high?' Did they make a late payment before? Interest rates don't just automatically go to 18 percent or 24 percent -- there has to be something done by the cardholder to trigger the rate to go from a preferred rate all the way up."

Revolving vs. Nonrevolving Credit

Before canceling credit card accounts, stop to consider the long-term implications on your credit score, says NFCC's Cunningham, noting that both revolving credit (in the form of credit cards) and nonrevolving credit (in the form of installment loans, such as auto loans, mortgages or other fixed-rate loans) are factored into a person's credit score. "The elements that are weighed to create your credit score include a review of different types of credit, and how you handle those. For instance, a credit card is going to demonstrate how, if you pretty much have an open-end except for a credit ceiling, you can charge varying amounts each month, thus your payment each month is going to be different, and they like to see how you handle that, versus a fixed-rate loan," she says.

Those who have paid off and then canceled their credit card account may end up "hamstringing" future efforts to obtain credit, because that old account will eventually rotate off your credit report after a period of time (usually seven years), says Cunningham. "It's better to leave it open, because this is another element that is weighed in the credit-scoring model: They like to see longevity. They like to see that you've had an account open for a long time and handled it responsibly."

Closing a credit card account can also adversely impact your credit rating by changing your debt utilization ratio -- the amount of money you owe as compared to your available credit. For example, if you close an account with a $1,000 credit limit, your overall available credit number will lower, consequently skewing your debt utilization ratio.

The Bottom Line

Ask any personal finance expert, and she will agree that credit cards themselves are not the cause of anyone's debt. Instead, it's the misuse of credit that is to blame. Cunningham jokes about a sticker some debtors apply to their mirrors, which states simply: "You're looking at the problem."

Many people, once they've paid off their debts, are anxious to jump back on the credit card express to Debtville, says Cunningham. "A lot of people want to re-enter the world of credit simply because we live in a credit-dominated society."

"I think the most important thing is, get your credit card and pay it off at the end of the month," Garcia says.

According to Demos' research, many of those who don't pay off their balance in full every month simply cannot afford to, says Garcia. An increased cost of living, a set income and the lack of a financial safety net lead a lot of people into deepening debt, Garcia says. "So it's not as simple as wanting to pay your credit card off. But if you can, pay it off. That way, you have a revolving line of credit, which is very useful. It's short-term loans. Take the money upfront and then pay later so you don't pay any interest rate or fees. But again, that's not necessarily the reality with a lot of Americans and low-income individuals now that we're close to a recession."

Will Amouzegar rejoin the Land of the Plastic once he's paid off his debt? "No," he says without hesitation. "I personally don't have the restraint to not view credit as extra income. I think that after the process of having been in debt and paid it off, I think I've learned my lesson, but still the temptation is there."

"Ultimately, credit card companies are really a game, and you really have to be an educated consumer, and I think, be aggressive with them, because they bank on you not having knowledge," says Amouzegar.

The Alternatives to Credit Cards:

* Visa or MasterCard debit cards: Though a MasterCard or Visa debit card is typically a good credit card substitute, the downside is that, when it comes time to reserve a hotel room or rent a car, there's a good chance that the hotel or rental card agency will create a $200-$500 or more "hold" on the debit card, and leave you with significantly less available cash in the bank.

* Emergency fund: Financial experts recommend saving an emergency fund of three to six months' worth of living expenses in case you face an unexpected job or financial crisis.

* Installment loans from banks or credit unions: There are different installment loans available for different situations. The interest rates will be is fixed, with a set payoff date.

A Cold, Hard Fact: Prepare for Higher Heating Costs Now

2008-08-12T17:55:00.000-07:00

by Suze Orman, MONEY MATTERS

There's another big housing bill in your future. No, I'm not talking about your potential taxpayer share of the recently passed federal housing bill if we ultimately get stuck with the tab for bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Prices Heat Up

What's on my radar right now -- and should be on yours -- is what it's going to cost to stay warm this winter. I realize it's probably sweltering where you live right now, but, as with all financial matters, you need to look down the road to see what might be coming up. And the news is not good, my friends: The same pain at the gas pump you've been dealing with for months is going to play out in your home heating bills.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a gallon of heating oil this winter could be 40 percent more expensive than it was last winter. And it's not as if last winter's heating bill was cheap; if the EIA forecast plays out as expected, a gallon of heating oil will be about 85 percent higher this coming February than it was two years ago.

Not worried because you use natural gas? The news is just as bleak, as prices are forecast to be about 45 percent higher this coming winter. Those of you relying on propane could face an even steeper increase. Electricity? Well, it's going to be a relative deal: The forecast is for retail electricity to be just 10 percent higher this winter compared to last. But let's face it, that's still a steep climb.

Clearly, it's time to get serious about a strategy for managing this winter's higher heating costs. Here are some steps to take:

• Get On a Manageable Payment Plan

Check in with your utility company now to see if there are any special payment plans available to avoid bill shock in the depth of winter. You may be able to switch to a plan that spreads out your payments across the entire year rather than having a big hike in the winter.

Of course, that means a higher average monthly bill in the temperate months. But the idea is that your budget can handle that easier than a huge hike in the winter.

• Winter-Proof Your House

Spend a day getting your home ready for winter to trim a few hundred dollars off your energy bills. I'm not going to suggest big-ticket projects such as re-insulating the roof; that's a great cost-saver over time that makes tremendous sense if you have the money to do it, of course, but your budget is probably already pretty stressed right now. I'm talking about small outlays that can net you big savings.

Start with the programmable thermostat. If you get strategic about lowering the temperature in the day when you're not around and late at night when you're tucked under the comforter, you may be able to cut your heating costs by 20 percent. That can go a long way toward offsetting this year's higher utility bills. You can pick up a programmable thermostat at any home-improvement store for $50 or so.

While you're at the store, pick up some caulking and weather-stripping supplies. Spend a few hours plugging up any gaps in your heating ducts and blocking out window and door drafts. These steps will save some serious money.

• Look for Hidden Savings Opportunities

I'm not a big fan of penny-by-penny budget-watching -- life is too short and free time too fleeting to spend it poring over a spreadsheet. But I do think everyone should take a serious look at their spending patterns at least once or twice a year and reevaluate their position, especially right now, when living costs are through the roof.

You know where I'm going with this: A cell phone plan or cable plan that may have been affordable a year or two ago could be a great place to find some hidden savings to deal with today's budget crunch. I bet many of you could easily reduce these bills by a combined $100 a month if you shifted to a less-inclusive plan. So no more inertia, no more excuses: Go online or brace yourself for an annoying call to customer service and get the switch done today.

If you have an emergency savings account to handle any unexpected costs, I'd also recommend you look into raising the deductibles on all your insurance coverage. It's a great way to reduce your premium costs by at least 10 percent. Again, it takes one call to lock in permanent savings.

• Give Yourself a Break for the Holidays

Talking about winter gets me thinking about the holidays and the gift trap I see so many of you fall into. Invariably, in January and February I'm inundated with calls and emails from people with an expensive gift-giving hangover: They're staring at big credit card bills they have no way of paying off.

If you wait until December to start thinking about holiday gifts, chances are you'll just whip out the card and make plenty of last-minute purchases. An alternative is to rope your family (and friends) into a conversation now about how you can all come up with a more manageable gift-giving plan.

Having a talk now, months before the holiday frenzy, makes for an easier conversation. Don't be shy or apologetic -- living within your means is something to be proud of. One obvious move is for all adults to agree that they don't need to exchange gifts. Keep the focus on the kids. But really, does every aunt, uncle, and grandparent have to shower every kid with a gift? I don't think so. How about one special group gift to each child instead?

Don't worry about what the kids will think. Spending more money than you can afford on gifts for them isn't a sign of love. Besides, instituting a new family-wide tradition that takes planning and thought and involves everyone is the sort of positive energy that should define the holidays. To say nothing of the financial benefit it will produce this winter, when energy costs are sky high.

China and the IOC are a match made in heaven

2008-08-11T00:26:00.000-07:00

By Marina Hyde, THE GUARDIAN, BEIJING

By the time you read this, world peace should have broken out. It should have broken out at precisely 8:08pm Beijing time on Friday, because International Olympic Committee (IOC) president Jacques Rogge made his traditional plea for a worldwide military truce for the duration of the Games. Yet on the off chance that the Taliban are not laying in supplies of popcorn and preparing for two weeks on the sofa, and US and British soldiers are not garlanding their tanks with flowers, now might be the time to question the IOC’s preposterously idealized version of itself.

There’s nothing wrong with calling for world peace, of course — beauty queens do it all the time. But you do need to follow it up with something special in the swimsuit round, and one can’t help feeling that the more of itself the IOC bares, the more hideous it appears.

The little guy

Strip away the grandiose statements, and an examination of how it treats the little guy should tell you all you need to know. Joey Cheek is the former US speedskating gold medallist who cofounded Team Darfur, the international athletes’ coalition that highlights the crisis in Sudan. Hours before he was due to travel to Beijing last week, his visa was summarily revoked by the Chinese government. Asked to comment on this blatant attempt to suppress an Olympic hero, an IOC droid explained “non-accredited persons do not fall within the IOC’s remit.”

Isn’t it amazing how swiftly one passes from being the winner of the Olympic Spirit Award to the status of “non-accredited person?” Two years ago Cheek won the honor following the winter Games in Turin, Italy, after donating his medal bonuses to a sport aid organization. Today, he lacks the requisite paperwork to merit even an IOC platitude.

The decision to award the Games to Beijing was always morally compromised — luminously so — and yet again the IOC find themselves highlighting their own absurdity. You can’t call for an immediate cessation of hostilities around the globe and in the next breath decline to get involved in a serious humanitarian issue because a former gold medallist doesn’t have the right accreditation pass. It’s like demanding an end to poverty then refusing to give tuppence to a beggar on the basis that he isn’t wearing a club tie.

Amazingly, it’s not even the IOC’s most unedifying moment of the past two weeks. That honor belongs to their decision to suspend the entire Iraqi Olympic team on the basis that the country’s National Olympic Committee (NOC) had not been properly recognized by the IOC. Clearly, Iraq’s real crime was not having the right paperwork, though before rescinding the ban on some (but not all) of the athletes, the IOC muttered that it was because of suspicions of “political interference in the Olympic movement.”

Two weeks ago I asked them to clarify why they had never suspected political interference when Uday Hussein was chairman of the NOC. Unfortunately, they were far too grand to comment, but having since read senior IOC member Dick Pound’s book, I discover that they couldn’t be sure that Uday was a political placeman. Thank God they didn’t put two and two together and make five.

Questionable Politics

Instead, they focus on issuing directives forbidding athletes from making any political statements. Surely it’s time the IOC re-examined their definition of what it means to be political. It seems entirely acceptable for states to politicize the Games by using them as propaganda, and for corporations to do the same (22 years of McDonald’s sponsorship feels faintly agenda-driven). Only the athletes are warned not to step out of line.

Priorities being what they are, the IOC did not bother to issue similar directives instructing China not to bulldoze homes to make way for the new Beijing. And yet they must have known this would happen, as so many Games have been preceded by what we might euphemistically describe as a tidying away of humans who don’t match the decor. Consider Mexico City, where police opened fire and killed hundreds of student protesters; or Atlanta, Georgia, where the organizing committee actually built the jail to which many people who committed new offences on the city statute book — like lying down in the street — were dispatched.

This is not “peace through sport.” These things happen precisely because the Olympic Games are coming to town, and it should be the IOC’s job to ensure that what is an amazing, inspiring world event does not come at the expense of the vulnerable.

Perhaps the most chillingly revelatory moment in Pound’s book is a quote from former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, explaining why it was preferable for Games to be staged in closed societies or dictatorships.

“‘Leesten, Deek,’ he said to me at one point. ‘For [the Olympics], it is much better to go to these countries. There will never be security problems,’” Pound quoted Samaranch as saying.

Now some Beijing street signs bear the instruction “Stay in to make space for foreign friends.” Stay in, stay grateful, stay schtum (quiet).

Watching the IOC grease up to the Chinese government, one can only wonder sarcastically what on earth attracted this one set of appalling old waxworks to the other — apart from a straightforward Narcissus complex.

NBC: We Want More, Tell the World About Darfur

2008-08-05T06:19:00.000-07:00

Four Habits of Financially Peaceful People

2008-08-03T17:59:00.000-07:00

by Laura Rowley

Last week, I reported on the results of a new survey by Yahoo! Finance and Decipher, which found many Americans struggling with anxiety in their financial lives. This week, I'll take a look at some people who have found financial peace -- and the habits they share.

1. They know exactly where their money goes.

Danny Kofke, 32, has been a special education teacher in suburban Atlanta for a decade. He wrote the book "How to Survive (and Perhaps Thrive) on a Teacher's Salary" based on his experience supporting a family of four on $37,000 a year.

"The number-one reason people are so far into debt is they don't know where the money is going," says Kofke, who is married with two daughters, ages four and one. "When we got married, we walked around with a pad for a month and wrote down everything we spent. After that we used a cash system -- we pulled $200 a week out of the ATM and left it in jar in our apartment. It's so much harder to spend the green stuff than swiping a piece of plastic through a machine."

When friends ask for advice, Kofke shows them how their money evaporates in drips and drops. "It's not the huge purchases, it's everyday occurrences they don't think twice about -- eating lunch out every day, going to the movies every week, or getting overdraft charges because they don't balance their checkbooks," he says.

Keep it simple: Write down every penny you spend for one or two months, examining those numbers and setting priorities. I use online software called Mvelopes to track my spending electronically; other people like Quicken or Microsoft Money. Find the method that works for you and stick with it.

2. They know what they want their money to do.

Financially peaceful people focus on two or three big goals they value, set a timeline, and then break the goal into smaller steps. They automate their savings through a weekly or monthly electronic transfer to a savings account, or by participating in a 401(k) plan. Meanwhile, focusing intensely on your own goals helps you avoid competing with the Joneses.

"I had a plan to retire," says Nicholas Fiduccia, a former computer hardware designer in Silicon Valley who recently left the workforce at age 50 and now lives in Oregon. "Sometime around 2000, I decided it was time to think about hanging up my career. I made plans by reading investment books, talking to money-wise friends and professionals, and attending retirement classes. Today, my philosophy is pretty simple: low-cost, diversified index funds, rebalanced every two years."

Similarly, several years before they had children, Kofke and his wife decided she would quit teaching and stay home with them full time. "We worked four years on one salary and put as much of her salary away as we could," he says. "We never got used to that second salary, so the loss of her income doesn't affect us as much."

3. They either don't carry revolving debt, or have a specific plan to pay it down.

"Plan your work and work your plan," says Mary Lena Anderegg, 65, a retired teacher who lives in Georgia with her spouse of 33 years. "Our first goal was to own a home outright in fifteen years, and in seven years we did. You have a lot more freedom to stamp your foot and say, 'This is how it shall be' if you own the land you're stamping your foot on."

Anderegg's husband was a homebuilder, and together they bought and flipped real estate back in the '80s, moving five times. That enabled her to get a Ph.D. with no debt. They lived on 30 to 40 percent of their income -- growing vegetables, hosting kids' clothing swaps, cutting utility bills, buying and maintaining used cars, and doing part-time or consulting work, putting the extra toward long-term goals.

In 1992, Anderegg's husband had a heart attack that left him unable to work -- and $40,000 in medical bills their health insurance didn't cover. "We wiped our savings clean because didn't want to incur debt," she recalls. Because they lived on less than half their earnings, they were able to make it on her salary -- and pay off the medical bills in just three years.

In 2000, they retired; they bought and fixed up a home near the ocean, and have traveled to Europe and Japan -- all with no debt. "Our rule is ‘If you want it badly enough to save for it, it's probably worth having,'" she says.

Small changes make a huge difference in banishing debt. If you put $1,000 on a credit card at 18 percent and make just minimum payments, it will take 12 years to pay off and cost $1,100 in interest. Put $20 more a month toward that card and it would be paid off in two years and a few months, with only $226 in interest. (Check out this calculator to see how an extra payment affects your payoff time.)

4. They invest in their job skills, and don't expand their lifestyles as fast as their salaries.

Rodger Oren was laid off in 2000 from an information technology position with a large manufacturing firm. "With my wife working, we had structured our expenses to live on the lesser of the two salaries," he says. "I could have bought a bigger house and better car, but I didn't. As a result, we didn't lose our house, auto, or incur debt from the ordeal."

Oren says he has always lived below his means thanks to the inspiration of his parents, who endured the Depression, and by watching manufacturing jobs disappear in his native Pennsylvania.

"I remember guys who were fifty-five years old coming out of McDonalds at shift changes" because it was the only job they could find after the steel mills closed, he recalls. "You can't live paycheck to paycheck -- you can't do that to yourself. I don't have as much as I would like, but I do sleep well at night regarding finances."

Oren banked his severance pay and jumped almost immediately into a college teaching job. By consulting on the side, he made 60 to 80 percent of his old salary, and kept hunting for IT positions. "I probably sent out thousands of resumes; I lost count," he says.

Ultimately, maintaining his career did require a temporary adjustment: He lives in Tennessee; his wife and two sons -- one starting medical school, the other in high school -- live in Georgia. "I'm ex-military, and sometimes you have to make sacrifices," says Oren, who served four years in the U.S. Air Force. "It's no different than if I was deployed somewhere." In the meantime, they visit back and forth on weekends and plan to reunite in two years, when his younger son graduates.

Oren shifted from manufacturing to the health-care sector and is working on his doctorate at night. When the IT security officer left last year, Oren volunteered to take on his duties for the learning opportunity.

"It increased my marketability; you always have to keep contemporary skills, look at the marketplace, and know where the trends are moving," he says. "With globalization, we have no idea what's going to happen -- you have to be fleet of foot, nimble, and adaptable."

For more habits of financially peaceful people, see my blog.

Solution to Stagflation

2008-07-03T18:46:00.000-07:00

Stagflation is a term describing an economy with both stagnation, which is basically recession and inflation at the same time.

It's a tricky situation for governments because the monetary tools available cannot solve both problems at the same time, and more so, using one tool to relieve the effects of one condition exacerbates the other.

Raising interest rates is believed to exacerbate stagnation, and the primary stagnation-fighting tool of lowering interest rates will exacerbate inflation.

According to Mr. Rodger Malcolm Mitchell, there is one, and only one, solution to stagflation which is to raise interest rates to cure inflation and increase deficit spending to cure stagnation.

Will the solution stated here be the course of action governments partake?

8 Big Mistakes You Could Be Making At Work

2008-06-30T17:50:00.000-07:00

By Liz Wolgemuth

By now, everyone knows the basic mistakes to avoid at work: no flip-flops, no swearing, no offensive downloads, and no irate E-mails. But there are plenty of other faux pas that can do harm to an employee's or manager's reputation in the office or with clients. Sometimes, these lesser-known errors are tough to learn to avoid. Luckily, the careers bloggers who contribute to U.S. News's On Careers: Outside Voices have come to the rescue. Here are eight mistakes they've spotted that you might not have known you were making:

Talking about politics:
Political opinions uttered around the water cooler can hurt office relations--especially if you're the boss, says G.L. Hoffman, chairman of JobDig and author of What Would Dad Say. Bosses who openly favor a particular candidate will appear to be taking sides with employees who favor the same one, Hoffman says. Even for nonmanagers, politics is a quick way to damage relationships with clients or vendors.

Quietly absorbing the increased price of gas:
You're paying through the nose to get to the office every morning, so why not take advantage of it? Blogger Andrew G.R. of Jobacle says this is a great time to ask for a raise. You might not get it, but you will have laid the groundwork for future negotiations, he says. Also, if you get turned down, you can take the opportunity to lobby for a telecommuting day each week.

Writing modest self-appraisals:
There is plenty of reason to show humility at the office--most of the time. When it comes to writing your self-appraisal, however, modesty is ill-placed, says Suzanne Lucas of Evil HR Lady. Your boss is almost certainly too busy to keep tabs on all your accomplishments throughout the year. The self-appraisal is an ideal time to show off all the terrific projects you've helmed and clients you've brought on. Just be honest, Lucas says.

Spending too little time listening:
It's easy to think that your job is to be a big thinker and a great achiever. But much of the time, the people around you just need to be heard. A good listener can stand out in an office of big shots. Michael Wade, author of Execupundit, writes that he once knew an executive "whose career success was widely attributed to his extraordinary ability to listen. When he was with you, he was with you."

Downplaying your mistakes:
Sure, you're nervous in the face of your error, but acting like it's nothing won't make it nothing. Your boss might very well end up more concerned with your blasé attitude than with the mistake itself, says Alison Green of Ask A Manager.

Not using your vacation time:
You think you're too busy and you think it's too expensive, but take a vacation anyway. "Vacation is given for a reason--you're not impressing people by failing to take it," writes Grant Harmon, who blogs at Newly Corporate. "In fact, you're proving that you're not able to balance work/life." Use the time to restore your energy. Then head back to the office looking refreshed and ready for work.

Talking yourself out of dreaming: Sure, dreaming can lead to wildly ridiculous ideas and outrageous goals, but outrageous goals get achieved all the time. Still, most people shut their dreams down pretty quickly. Curt Rosengren of The M.A.P. Maker suggests, instead, that you assume "the only possible outcome is success, and then challenge yourself to prove how that can happen." You're talking away the critic and forcing yourself to get creative.

Blindly accepting a promotion: Most people tend to think that it's better to get ahead, but many find that a promotion is no improvement on their previous job and barely--or not at all--worth the new title. Before you accept a promotion, ask some key questions, suggests Jobacle's Andrew G.R.: How much more work would be involved? How much more money? What kind of staff would you be inheriting? Also, get an idea of what the next career step would be, he says. You don't want to make a leap--and find out you're at a dead end.

Graduating to a Happy, Financially Secure Future

2008-06-26T23:36:00.000-07:00

by Laura Rowley of Money & Happiness

Every year around this time, the New York Times prints a roundup of commencement addresses. I always find a little inspiration there to cut out and stick on my office wall. This year, its author J.K. Rowling's address to Harvard grads about the benefits of failure -- although if I were to nominate a group for the "least likely to fail" award, it would probably be that audience.

In any case, I had some thoughts for my own commencement address. Here's what I would tell the class of 2008 about money.

Believe the Clichés

Personal finance advice is so similar, and so often repeated, it's become a cliché:

• Live within your means.

• Set up an emergency fund with three months of living expenses.

• Stay out of debt.

• Join your company's 401(k) plan or open an individual retirement account; set aside at least 10 percent of your pre-tax income every year.

• Invest in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds to help your money grow over time, and make sure you're not paying too much in fees.

Clichés are easy to take for granted and easy to tune out. But here's the truth: Believe these clichés. Because if you actually follow the advice, it will transform your life.

The Roaring 20s

I'm convinced that real happiness comes from identifying your values, and then being brave enough to expend your strongest talents and best energy in their service. I think genuine happiness comes from naming what you care about most deeply, setting priorities around those values, and then translating them into real, concrete goals. Money is one instrument in the toolbox of resources and people and experiences that help you journey down that path toward the person you were meant to be.

Your 20s represent a personal finance paradox: You have the most financial power that you may ever have because of the phenomenon of compounding. (Someone who saves $2,000 a year for retirement between age 21 and 30 and then stops will have a bigger nest egg than someone who starts at 31 and saves until they're 65.) At the same time, your 20s can be a bit of a bust in terms of figuring out why you were put on the planet.

It's a confusing decade -- you charge out of college knowing everything and ready to rule the world, and spend the next decade realizing you know almost nothing at all. Then, in your 30s and 40s, you recognize that it's OK to know almost nothing -- and is actually a finer way to approach life, because you really listen to and learn from other people, take risks, and benefit from mistakes and failure. (If you continue to simply know everything, you don't grow and become an arrogant bore.)

The Ghosts of Purchases Past

So here's the problem: Many people lurch around in their 20s trying to establish their identities. One day, you pick up a magazine or see a television show that suggests one can establish an identity by buying $500 designer shoes. Or $900 designer golf clubs. Or some other stupid thing that costs a whole lot less to manufacture than you paid for it. Because you weren't just paying for straps of leather or sticks of iron but for an identity attached to a lifestyle that somebody made up in a brainstorming session in an advertising firm somewhere in New York, or in a scriptwriting meeting in Los Angeles.

And this isn't entirely your fault. You're bombarded with signals to buy in a way previous generations were not. There are 1,000 cable channels telling you on a daily basis that your face, body, home, and possessions are in need of an extreme makeover. Technology and credit card companies have made it effortless to act on those impulses.

And then you get into your 30s and 40s and have a better understanding of who you are and why you were put on the planet. You're now ready to use money as a tool to help walk down that road. That's when your 20s can come back to haunt you. Maybe you're still paying the credit card for the $500 shoes and the $900 golf clubs (or for all the money spent in chic bars showing off the shoes, and at golf courses showing off the clubs).

Reality Bites

So you had some fun, but now you're playing catch up. That's usually when the magical thinking starts. You do things like buy a house with an adjustable rate mortgage (because you didn't save up a home down payment). Or you listen to some guru who tells you to put everything you have in gold or oil, or to buy stocks on margin or speculative real estate with no money down.

And maybe you have a couple of kids, and the media that told you to buy the shoes and golf clubs is now suggesting you invest in Suzuki violin lessons, private tutors, and traveling sports teams.

You're scrambling to save for retirement, scrambling to meet your rising mortgage payments, getting in deeper on that credit card to take a few fun vacations with your kids before they grow up and leave you, and God knows how you'll pay for college (since the gold-oil-stocks-real estate thing didn't work for you the way it did for the guru).

And it's really hard to follow your deepest values, and pursue that thing you were meant to do and become that person you were meant to be, because you're really stressed out about money.

Happiness Gained

I was a naïve kid from the Midwest living in New York City in my 20s -- naïve enough to believe all those clichés my father told me about staying out of debt and saving for retirement. So I did both -- it was just something I made a requirement, as routine as brushing my teeth. (And I had a lot of fun at the same time; I just bought my shoes at sample sales, frequented bars with free happy-hour buffets, and traveled to Europe on a shoestring.)

And when I was 37 (which happened a hell of lot sooner than I expected) and working 14 hours a day in television with two kids under age three, I could walk away from my full-time job and start my own thing. My values had shifted, and I knew I had to find a better balance between work and family. I had the luxury of using money to journey down the road in pursuit of my values -- not because I had a big win in oil or gold or sold a bazillion get-rich-quick books, but because I had stayed out of debt and consistently saved for almost two decades.

And that has made me happy.

Commence with Being Happy

So here's my advice:

• Live within your means.

• Set up an emergency fund with three months of living expenses.

• Stay out of debt.

• Join your company's 401(k) plan or open an individual retirement account, and save at least 10 percent of your pre-tax income every year.

• Invest in a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds to help your money grow over time, and make sure you're not paying too much in fees.

Believe in the clichés. Follow the advice, make it as routine as brushing your teeth. Because one day it will open up a world of options, and transform money from a potentially huge source of stress into a resource to help you follow your values -- and hopefully figure out why you're on the planet.

馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係

2008-06-11T20:24:00.000-07:00

Very interesting POV.

馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係

一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？

康建淽2008/06/11

康建淽暑假獲得美國華府智庫的獎學金，到智庫擔任訪問研究員的暑期工作，因此這個暑假就不回台灣了。

康建淽這次獲邀研究的主體是『馬英九政權倒台後的台中美三國關係』，重點在分析從美國的觀點，分析馬英九政權是否會倒台，何時倒台，與倒台的速度，美國政府應該如何因應，確保美國在東亞的勢力與利益。

就像康建淽2007年11月所寫的『台灣共和國第一任總統: 馬英九總統』。美國透過讓馬英九當選，有效控制台灣國內政治的局勢，讓馬英九押著國內外省少數族群，與泛藍媒體，透過壓制住這一群過去影響台灣過去 8年穩定的因素，讓馬英九成為台灣繼續保持獨立的公僕與拉車狗。

諸位網友不見，馬英九當選與就職後，過去在陳水扁時代『許多媒體，紛紛透過假資料與特定立場的學者，看壞台灣，並藉此製造民進黨政府執政不佳的印象，營造出國民黨輪替的正當性，或是，台灣一定要與中國整合或統一的言論。馬英九在2008當上總統後，媒體從此不敢看壞台灣，甚至紛紛製造出台灣一定好的言論，鼓勵台灣人消費，與外資進入。』

這些用新聞自由與人民知的權利為名，卻去進行政治鬥爭陳水扁政權的媒體與名嘴，現在紛紛站在支持馬政權的一邊，新聞報導避重就輕，不敢太過批評，以免傷了自己的嘔像。可笑的，自己卻忘了過去所宣稱『媒體是第三權，要一直監督政府』的說法與大旗。

七月4日，開放中國觀光客來台灣國內觀光，卻反而讓一般沒有與中國人接觸過的台灣人，經過與中國人互動的第一手經驗，感受到中國人的水準與不同，因此更深化台灣人不是中國人，台灣不想與中國統一的政治發展。許多中國觀光客，更分享自己住在中國共產黨政權下的經驗，讓台灣人更了解中國經濟與政治發展的內幕。

好笑的，七月4日不僅是美國獨立紀念日，未來更因為馬英九的開放中國觀光客的政策，讓台灣更進一步與中國分離，邁向永久法理獨立的發展。可能成為台灣共和國的獨立紀念日。

台灣人一方面對中國觀光客，『來一個打一個』，口袋賺的飽飽，與中共事與願違的，台灣經濟越好，台灣意識持續升高，台灣人越不想與中國統一。

美國的長期戰略是，先透過外省人馬英九與國民黨政權安住台灣內部，讓台灣國民將台灣意識，逐漸深化到台灣人每一個人的心中，讓台灣獨立成為每一個台灣人，每天生活呼吸的一部份等。國際政治環境許可，美國才用最少的成本，讓台灣獨立，確保美國在東亞的利益可以保持。

套在馬英九政權頸上的國際與國內的繩索，讓馬英九與其代表的政黨，變成一群替台灣人民服務的拉車狗，只可以在台灣人民許可的保持實質獨立的情況下執政。民主發展的台灣，讓馬英九政權動輒得疚，不過過度往中國傾斜。

許多網友都已觀察到，馬英九政權在短命的蜜月期時間，所發生的物價上漲，『台灣郵政』改名爭議，『訪華』與『訪台』的政策急轉彎，高級官員的綠卡事件，可以看出馬英九政權，如果馬英九政權做出不符合台灣人民集體利益可以隨時倒台。

過去在國府蔣家政權時代，只可以當國民黨外省權貴奴隸的台灣人，現在終於享受到讓外省權貴吹喇叭的服務，透過台灣幾十年所發展的民主機制，馴服一群權貴，替台灣人做牛作馬。

美國隨時可以透過釋放出馬英九政權高官的綠卡與國籍資訊，以及馬英九政權高官在美國的『人質』[如馬維中等人] 與所持有財產的相關資訊，控制住馬英九政權，可以讓他在美國利益為主，當美國政府的代理人，繼續保持台灣繼續獨立，並在符合美國的利益下與中國接觸，讓美國透過台灣，牽制住中國。

諸位網友們不是看到，在美國洩漏出馬英九政權高官擁有綠卡的消息之後，稍稍試一下勒馬索的強度與力道後，馬英九政權高官雞飛狗跳的窘態，馬英九在總統府幾週不出來，好像在思考『燒炭』一般【引自一位泛藍名嘴，曾經笑話陳水扁選戰失敗的名言】。

This is what baggage brings you.

台灣人民本來就可有自由遷襲的選擇國籍的自由，可悲的是，這些馬英九政權高官，口口聲聲捍衛中華民國，要和中國統一，用台灣不好，要用【中華】。但輪到他們自己可以自由選擇『統一』的地點，卻都只是美國與加拿大等民主國家統一，先透過持有這些國家的綠卡與楓葉卡，未來可以喪自己去自由選擇的去入藉這些國家，宣誓效忠這些國家。

相反的，台灣人想要自己建立起新國家，想要維持自己民主自由生活方式，不想要自己與子孫被一個共產不自由不民主的國家，強佔與統一，就要受中國武器威脅，以及『背叛中華民國』等大帽子污衊。

一個人想要自由選擇自己的前途，還會因為自己是不是權貴而不同，難道選擇的自由，只限於這些權貴嗎？

馬英九政權會不會倒台，何時倒台，倒台的方式是4年一次的政黨輪替，或是因台灣國內問題被人民推翻，美國政府現在看到一個綠卡事件，就可以整的馬英九政權雞飛狗跳，威信盡失。

美國政府可以知道馬英九政權的容易掌控。

本來擁有綠卡與楓葉卡，不一定代表對中華民國不忠誠，但是政府官員本來就和一般老百姓與企業ceo 不同。政府官員掌握國家機器與龐大預算分配，甚至國家機密。哪一個國家可以允許其政府高官擁有另外其他國家的居留權，去享有治理國家與管理人民的權利。台灣的國民，願意被一群『八國聯軍』式的外國買辦來管理。難道台灣的人才都死光了？台灣本地人才不夠資格來管理自己。難道現在台灣是美國與加拿大的租借地。

擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想保有居留權，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅，做出背叛中華民國與台灣人民的事情?

擁有這些綠卡與楓葉卡馬英九政權的高官，難道不會因為想在綠卡事件中脫身，說出一些可笑的綠卡『自動失效』，『辦過美國簽證就失效』說法的，受美國與加拿大政府的威脅要說出綠卡與楓葉卡失效的正當法律程序，做出出賣中華民國與台灣人民的事情？

全台灣2千3百萬人之中，難道找不到一群乾乾淨淨，正正當當的政府官員，來當我們的公僕？

馬英九政權的脆弱性，在台灣的執政可以不可以符合美國的國家利益，繼續作為美國在東亞的買辦，美國會考量自己的國家利益下，密切觀察。康建淽本次所進行的研究計劃，就是協助發展出不同的SCENARIOS [劇本] ，協助美國智庫作出正確的建議。詳細情況，康建淽在研究進行過程中，再和網友報告了。

〔資料來源：油雞不落-康建淽 | 引用網址〕

Five Tips for 20-Somethings to Save for Retirement

2008-06-04T18:40:00.000-07:00

by Lauren Tara LaCapra

Legend has it that Albert Einstein once called compounding interest the most powerful force in the universe. Unfortunately, that concept has escaped many of those who would benefit most from it: the 20-somethings who have entered the work force but aren't saving up for retirement.

While it can be hard to justify saving for something that will occur decades into the future, financial advisors say its importance can't be understated.

One reason is that Social Security is far from guaranteed: Without reform, the program will not be able to pay out benefits at current levels, starting in 2041. People who are 22 years old now would typically still have at least 10 years to go until retirement at that point.

Another reason is that compounding interest makes saving early far more profitable than starting late.

As an example, Vincent Barbera, director of financial planning at TGS Financial Advisors, offers two different scenarios: Person X deposits $2,000 into an IRA each year from the ages of 22 to 31, then stops, while Person Y deposits $2,000 each year from the ages of 31 to 65. Both have the same interest rate and allow interest to accrue. Person X will earn nearly $50,000 more than Person Y by age 65, even though the latter contributed $50,000 more to the account over 25 additional years.

With that in mind, here are five helpful tips for 20-somethings who want to start preparing for the future:

• Put "surprise" cash into an IRA. Instead of spending that $100 birthday present or $600 rebate check, pretend you never received the money and stick it into your retirement savings account.

• If your company offers a 401K plan, enroll -- even if you put the minimum amount that will be matched. If not, start contributing to your own individual account.

Joseph Birkofer, a financial planner at Legacy Asset Management in Houston, suggests putting at least 7% of your gross pay into such an account to match your contribution to Social Security and Medicare.

• Use automatic deposits from your check or bank into your IRA. That way, you don't have to put in the effort of manually depositing funds and won't be tempted to use them toward another purchase.

• Put yourself in their shoes. Find it hard to justify saving money for something so far off in the future? Imagine yourself as a retiree and how it will affect your family and lifestyle. Birkofer suggests thinking about how your grandma, great-uncle or local retirees pay for lunch.

"There's only three places to get money besides stealing it or winning the lottery: the government, whatever you did yourself or from your family and your kids," he says.

If you don't want to rely on Social Security's shaky outlook or the unattractive option of burdening your family, being financially independent through your golden years can only come from the initiatives you take now.

• Don't get burned. When choosing a fund, make sure to balance risk.

Some want to chase higher returns with riskier funds, but starting out slow might make more sense -- especially for those who are hesitant to start saving in the first place.

Birkofer suggests young investors build up a core of $15,000 to $20,000 in a balanced retirement fund, then start exploring funds that are weighted in international or emerging-market investments.

"We lost almost a generation of investors because of the dot-com bomb and it's taken them years to come back to the market," he notes.

Some Suggestions for Ma Ying-Jeou

2008-03-23T17:28:00.000-07:00

By Bruce Jacobs 家博

'If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's good will, the future of Taiwan will be bleak.'

Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) landslide victory confirms Taiwan's democracy is thriving. Many citizens who voted for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in 2000 and 2004 blamed Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for the perceived failures of the past eight years. Thus, they quite rationally decided to vote for Ma. In many ways, this voter dissatisfaction with the DPP government continues the trends shown in the legislative election two months ago.

Ma must realize that his massive victory does not come from his cross-strait policies such as the "cross-strait common market." In fact, the most successful part of DPP candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign was his dismantling of vice-presidential candidate Vincent Siew's (蕭萬長) "cross-strait common market" idea, a fact Ma realized as he repeatedly retreated on the common market policy. Tibet also showed the naivete of Ma's cross-strait policy.

Rather, Ma's victory was a defeat for the DPP's economic policies and for its perceived corruption. Ma must bear this in mind as he goes forward.

Ma faces some difficult decisions ahead of his inauguration date on May 20. His most difficult heritage is his reputation for making contradictory statements at different times. For example, when running for re-election as mayor of Taipei in 2002, he told me personally and then said in a major press conference that Taiwan's future should be decided by the 23 million people of Taiwan. Recently, he reiterated this stance. Yet, on Feb. 12, 2006, and at other times, he said the future of Taiwan should be decided by the peoples on both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Ma has also emphasized the threats posed by China and has even declared that the withdrawal of China's missiles is a precondition for cross-strait talks. Yet, at other times, he has expressed the opinion that if Taiwan is friendly to China, Beijing will in turn demonstrate friendship for Taiwan and give Taiwan more international space.

Clearly, China's repeated repression in Tibet, including the recent crackdown, has made a mockery of its original 1951 Treaty of Amity with Tibet. This clearly has lessons for Taiwan.

The KMT that Ma leads is very divided. On one hand there are the old, China-centric conservatives, many of whom go back to the dictatorial period. On the other hand, there are the more Taiwan-centric reformers. Ma is a bridge between these groups and frequently leaves both unhappy. Thus, the old conservatives refused to accept Ma's suggestion that the KMT publicly accept defeat in 2004 and they criticized him when he sold the old KMT party headquarters and old party-run enterprises.

So far, he has also proved insufficiently reformist for the younger members of the KMT. Bringing People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) back into the KMT is not a reform move. Neither is giving prominence to former vice president and KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰). And putting such recent criminals as KMT Legislator Chiu Yi (邱毅) high on the party ticket for the legislature does not send a reform message either

I recommend to Ma that he ally with the reformers in the KMT. Thus, for example, he should not appoint KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤), a former minister of economic affairs, as premier. Chiang, who is already 75 years old, lacks a reformist spirit. As deputy speaker of the legislature, he had a military honor guard snap to attention every time he or his guests entered his chambers. Such behavior belongs in a dictatorship, not a democracy. In addition, Chiang lacks any notion of reform or of a global world.

Rather, Ma should appoint a younger Taiwan-centric, reformist administrator as premier. One such person would be Taoyuan County Commissioner Chu Li-lun (朱立倫), who has led a large county and implemented a reformist strategy. Chu speaks excellent English, has traveled widely and would present an excellent face for Taiwan to the world. In addition, domestically he would push reform in Taiwan's bureaucratic administrative system. Provided he is healthy, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) might be another possible premier.

In the KMT itself, Ma must also push reform. For example, he must implement separation of the party and government. Thus, the president and Cabinet ministers should not be members of the KMT's Central Standing Committee. Such reforms are essential to reforming the KMT and turning it into a genuine democratic party.

Ma should remember his statement in the second TV debate, when he said he regretted that the KMT in its eight years in opposition had failed to reform. This statement was never followed up in the campaign, but he should also make party reform a matter of priority.

If Ma pushes a Taiwan-centric, reformist agenda, the people of Taiwan will unite behind him. If, on the other hand, he is weak toward China and relies on Beijing's goodwill, the future of Taiwan will be bleak. Only with a genuinely reformist agenda can Ma fulfill his major campaign slogan of "going forward."

Bruce Jacobs is professor of Asian languages and studies and director of the Taiwan Research Unit at Monash University in Melbourne, Australia.

The West and Beijing Must Share Shame Over the Tibet Crisis

2008-03-20T20:10:00.000-07:00

By Simon Tisdall, of The Guardian, London.

Western governments have focused too much on Beijing's economic clout and not enough on its illegitimacy, which helps to explain their meek responses

China's anger and embarrassment over the Tibet protests is keenly felt and will not be easily assuaged. Its sense of betrayal is as striking as its inability to comprehend the cause of it. But Beijing's shame is widely shared. The unrest has confronted Western governments with inconvenient truths for which they plainly have no answers.

In the short term the hosts of the Beijing Olympics know they must act cautiously as the world watches, its running shoes in hand. Having been forced belatedly to acknowledge the scale of the trouble, Beijing cannot afford an even wider, more brutal public crackdown, its instinctive reaction to similar situations in the past.

State retaliation in the weeks and months ahead is likely to be stealthy and silent. For those who dared to make a stand, vengeance will come by night, in an unmarked car or an unheralded knock on the door.

This is typically how China deals with dissent, as Hu Jia (胡佳), a prominent human rights activist who went on trial for subversion on Tuesday, could testify.

Yet in blaming the Dalai Lama and his "clique" for organizing a conspiracy of sabotage, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) missed the mark. Tibet's exiled spiritual leader has long promoted an autonomous accommodation with, not independence from, China. It is younger generations of Tibetans, inside and outside the country, who increasingly call the shots and pursue more robust tactics.

An editorial in the Communist Party mouthpiece the Tibet Daily appeared to acknowledge this shift -- while revealing the true extent of Chinese fury.

`LAWLESS ELEMENTS'

"These lawless elements have insulted, beaten, and wounded duty personnel, shouted reactionary slogans, stormed vital departments, and gone to all lengths in beating, smashing, looting, and burning," it said. "Their atrocities are appalling and too horrible to look at and their frenzy is inhuman. Their atrocities of various kinds teach and alert us to the fact that this is a life-and-death struggle between the enemy and ourselves."

This official "us versus them" view implies there will be no quick end to the disturbances or the retaliation. Horrific photographs of 13 people allegedly killed at Kirtii monastery in Aba (Ngawa) town, Sichuan Province, by Chinese security forces and released on Tuesday by the Free Tibet campaign will meanwhile stoke opposition fires.

The next flashpoint could be Beijing's plan to relay the Olympic torch through Lhasa and other ethnic Tibetan areas on its journey from Greece to Beijing.

Another so-called Chinese "renegade province," Taiwan, has already refused to take part. Tibet was not given a choice.

The broader prospect now, unnerving for a Chinese leadership that has staked so much on a showpiece, self-validating Games, is of trouble continuing right through until August.

This is a worrying prospect for Western leaders, too. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that he will meet the Dalai Lama when he visits Britain in May. If so, it will enrage Beijing, even more than German Chancellor Angela Merkel's recent meeting with the Tibetan leader.

All Brown's commercial and business networking during his China trip earlier this year could be undone.

Earlier, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband tied himself up in knots when asked about a possible meeting, refusing to say whether the government would welcome it while insisting that the issue would be dealt with "in a very straightforward and appropriate way." It's a safe bet that London hopes the Dalai Lama won't come after all.

Brown's decision to attend the Olympics opening ceremony, not normally an essential requirement despite the expected presence of US President George W. Bush, is also beginning to look like a big potential embarrassment. Steven Spielberg and Mia Farrow, attacking China over Darfur, triggered the first round of pre-Olympic, anti-Beijing media frenzy.

ROUND TWO

Tibet is round two. There are more bouts, and many more similar issues, in the pipeline, waiting to trip up an accident-prone prime minister.

European Parliament President Hans-Gert Pottering on Tuesday urged politicians to reconsider going to Beijing if violence and repression in Tibet continued. Such calls are likely to become more voluble.

Nearly all Western governments have found themselves in the same leaky boat this week, calling meekly for more information, restraint and dialogue in Tibet and knowing their advice will be ignored. All insist that a boycott of the Games is not contemplated. All worry too much about the Chinese government's economic power and not enough about its basic political illegitimacy.

All now face a growing body of international and domestic public opinion that is increasingly questioning what has been dubbed their pre-Olympics "three monkeys policy." See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil could have worked in 1904, when a power-grabbing British expeditionary force butchered thousands of Tibetans without a second thought.

But in the present-day interconnected, globalized world that Brown and Miliband talk about and China perforce inhabits, that dog won't hunt.

Two Rivers, Two Mayors and A Very Clear Choice

2008-03-20T20:08:00.000-07:00

By Matthew Lien

The recent election of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was attributed in part to his restoration of a river running through Seoul. When Lee was elected mayor of Seoul in 2001, one of his key campaign promises was to remove the freeway covering the Cheonggyecheon River and to restore the waterway as a symbol of the city's beauty.

This caused me to reflect on Taiwan's presidential election and the first time I met Kaohsiung environmental activists and academics involved in the clean-up of the Kaoping River.

In 1999, I was appointed "Ambassador to the Aboriginal Cultures of the Kaoping River" by the Kaohsiung County Government and was given a tour of the most beautiful and most polluted sections of the river. I was also shown what efforts were being made to improve it and Kaohsiung City's Love River.

Years later, the results are impressive and the credit must go partly to the commitment of Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), who was at the time mayor of Kaohsiung.

Both of these rivers are widely known success stories, illustrating the importance of environmentalism and community development.

By contrast, I was invited several years ago by the Taipei City Government when Chinese Nationalist Party presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was mayor to tour the Tamsui River. The Department of Cultural Affairs director at the time, Lung Ying-tai (龍應台), and I took a one-hour tour of the river. Infamous for its severe pollution, a stench rose from the water as we climbed into small boats.

Accompanied by reporters, we saw dead pigs float by in the water, which can fairly be described as toxic. This was clearly an atrocity against the environment and allowing it to continue unchecked was a grievous failure of government at all levels.

Lung asked for my recommendations, which I enthusiastically provided based on my river conservation work in Canada with the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS), Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Yukon Conservation Society and Friends of Yukon Rivers.

I described in detail an annual river festival that should be held on the banks of the Tamsui River, featuring original music and works by local artists portraying their impressions of the river. A CD and a coffee-table book could be published annually to help fund the festival and educate more people about the issue.

I also suggested that academics and water specialists be involved in the festival, updating the public on the pollution and its causes and documenting any changes in water quality.

They would also suggest which government departments should take responsibility for enforcing laws that penalize offenders and correct the problem. They could issue "report cards" to those departments.

I felt this would bring media attention, increase government accountability and inspire government action.

Lung supported my proposals and we presented the plan to the media.

Years later, the Tamsui River remains one of the most polluted in the country. All the talk of improvements seem to have been nothing more than a media exercise. It looked great on TV, but it resulted in little or nothing being done by Ma's administration.

As Taiwan goes to the polls, I can't help but recall my personal experiences with the two candidates and the adage: "By their fruits will you know them."

As one who believes that government officials bear the responsibility for the entire community and environment in their jurisdiction, I trust in the rivers to endorse the candidate who is best to navigate the currents of change facing Taiwan.

Matthew Lien is an environmentalist and musician from Canada.

US Deploys Two Aircraft Carriers Close to Taiwan

2008-03-20T17:30:00.000-07:00

By Charles Snyder, additional reporting by Jenny W. Hsu

'RESPONSIBLY POSITIONED': Washington was mum on whether the violent Chinese crackdown in Tibet would have an impact on the presidential election

Two US aircraft carriers, the USS Kitty Hawk and the USS Nimitz, have been sent to the Taiwan region for training exercises during tomorrow's election, a US defense official said on Wednesday.

The two carriers were "responsibly positioned" in the Pacific Ocean somewhere east of Taiwan and would remain in place through Saturday's presidential election and referendum on UN membership, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

He declined to elaborate on the positions of the two vessels.

"We feel we are responsibly positioned at this time," the defense official said, adding that the two carriers were not close enough to Taiwan to provoke China, but would be able to "respond if there's a provocative situation."

Navy officials said the Kitty Hawk left its base in Japan en route to Hawaii on Tuesday and would continue on to the continental US later for decommissioning.

In Taipei, the Ministry of National Defense did not comment on the deployment.

American Institute in Taiwan Director Stephen Young said that the vessels were merely making a routine patrol in the Strait and that it had nothing to do with tomorrow's election.

Meanwhile, high-level US State Department officials on Wednesday refused to speculate on how the uprising in Tibet and the violent response by Beijing authorities might affect tomorrow's election in Taiwan, but the officials once again criticized the planned referendum on UN membership.

The officials were responding to a flurry of interest in the Taiwanese elections by journalists in Washington in view of reports from Taiwan about the local impact of the Tibetan uprising and repeated comments by department officials on the referendum.

Meanwhile, four Taiwan supporters in the House of Representatives wrote a letter to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Wednesday, urging her to support the referendum.

Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill sidestepped a question about whether events in Tibet could have "unexpected implications" for the Taiwanese election and "negative implications" for cross-strait relations.

"I'm not going to handicap ... make judgements ... about how the people in Taiwan are going to make their vote. They have information. They'll look at information and I'm not going to start predicting what things that happen in the world can affect their vote," he said.

"Obviously ... we look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. We have every reason to expect it to be. But I am not really in a position to tell you what is affecting the vote and what is not affecting the vote," Hill said.

He also said he had nothing to add to the criticism that Rice has leveled at the referendum recently.

"How [the elections] are conducted is a matter for the people of Taiwan to accomplish. I'm not going to give them advice on what to do in their elections," he said.

US State Department spokesman Tom Casey, however, took the opportunity to level yet one more barb at the referendum.

"As we've indicated," he told a reporter at the department's regular daily briefing, "the United States is opposed to the specific referendum [on UN entry under the name `Taiwan']. We believe it is unnecessary and unhelpful and will not have an effect on Taiwan's ability to join the UN or other organizations requiring statehood."

Casey also said the US "does look forward to a free and fair election in Taiwan. And we will work within the parameters of our existing relationship with whoever is elected by the Taiwan [sic] people."

The congressional letter to Rice was signed by representatives Robert Andrews, a Democrat, and Scott Garrett of New Jersey, John Linder of Georgia and Thaddeus McCotter of Michigan, who are Republicans. Andrews and Garrett have been among Taiwan's biggest champions on Capitol Hill.

"We strongly urge the United States to support the referendum," the lawmakers said.

"The Taiwanese people have the right -- as all people do -- to self-determination," the letter said. "However, the ability to exercise that right is severely compromised when a nation's largest ally turns its back."

"For too long Taiwan has stood its ground as a bulwark of democracy against the encroaching aspirations of an authoritarian communist regime. We should not condemn or oppose the dreams of those who want only to remain free and take their place in the international community," the letter said.

It's Use It or Lose It on Saturday

2008-03-20T07:35:00.000-07:00

Anyone who believed that China respects Taiwanese people should have been roused from their stupor after Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) on Tuesday reiterated Beijing's line that Taiwan is an inseparable part of China.

The timing of Wen's comments -- concurrent with Beijing's bloody crackdown on protesting Tibetans -- drives home the need for Taiwanese to vote in Saturday's referendum and make it known that Taiwan is not a province of China.

Whether one supports the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) proposal on joining the UN under the name "Taiwan," or the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) version of rejoining the UN with the official title of the Republic of China or any other "practical" title -- or both -- the public should make its voice heard by participating in the referendum process.

The more Taiwanese democracy draws the attention of the international community, the better it can demonstrate that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.

Wen also said that Taiwan's referendums on UN membership would threaten peace and stability for the Pacific region and deliver a major strike against Taiwan's interests.

Look who's talking. Which government has hundreds of missiles aimed across the Taiwan Strait, creating a situation that has been called a potential flashpoint by international observers? Which government is "threatening peace and stability in the region" with a massive military build-up that draws concern not only from neighboring countries but also from those on the other side of the globe, such as the US and the UK?

And how could a simple exercise in basic human rights in a democratic country constitute a strike against its interests?

Taiwan has come a long way since the days of authoritarian rule. Perhaps some people have started to take democracy for granted, just as one might forget the oxygen in the air. But how miserable it would be if the air of freedom was suddenly sucked away.

Taiwanese know that democracy must be respected, perhaps with the exception of those politicians who urge the public to abandon their privileges and boycott referendums even as people in other corners of the world die for freedom.

Clinging to Wen's coattails, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen also spoke on Tuesday against the referendums, branding them "pointless and destabilizing" and "unnecessary and unhelpful."

Wen and Christensen simply will not concede that Taiwanese democracy is an issue for Taiwanese.

On Saturday, Taiwan has the opportunity to show the world just how different it is from autocratic China.

The issue is all the more important after the UN Office of Legal Affairs on Tuesday again snubbed an expression of support by Taiwan's allies for the nation's admission into the world body.

The new government to be formed on May 20 may very well give up on the UN bid if neither referendum succeeds. Indeed, how can Taiwan ask its allies to speak for it if the nation doesn't stand up for itself on Saturday?

Taipei Times Editorial, March 20, 2008.

Tibet Riots A Meter of Beijing's Rot

2008-03-20T07:28:00.000-07:00

By Sushil Seth

First Myanmar and then China. It is quite a coincidence that Buddhist monks in both countries have been leading protests against repression.

It is not surprising, though, that when all other avenues of peaceful protest are denied, people should turn to their church or monasteries for leadership.

It happened in communist Poland. It is happening in Myanmar and now in Tibet, where China exercises a stifling grip over the local population. (Xinjiang is also proving troublesome, though Beijing attributes the trouble there to Islamic terrorism.)

Poland, though, had a happy ending with the Solidarity Movement and the Catholic Church providing inspirational leadership.

And when the time was right and the Soviet Union was heading toward collapse, Poland and the rest of Eastern Europe reclaimed their freedom and independence.

Could this happen to China and its so-called autonomous regions, most notably Tibet?

The generals in Myanmar seem secure, with their international flank covered by China's support.

And the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) oligarchy seems quite self-assured that it is on the right track to make China into a superpower.

Beijing believes that with China's new international status it will be able to ignore or ride out any criticism abroad about its politics and policies.

The hosting of the Beijing Olympics in August seemed a surefire way of introducing a self-confident and powerful China to the world. But it is not all going according to script.

First, there is continuing criticism that Beijing is not opening up, as it promised, to international media, and is suppressing internal dissent before the Olympics.

Second, there is international condemnation of its indifference to the suffering of people of Darfur at the hands of the Sudanese government.

Sudan is a prime example of China's policy of fraternizing with unpalatable regimes to access their oil, gas and other natural resources.

Third, the eruption of Tibetan protests led by Buddhist monks has focused the international spotlight on Tibet. China has brought out the heavy artillery, reminiscent of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre.

According to exiled Tibetan sources, there have been, at the time of writing, 80 to 100 fatalities from China's heavy-handed response to a popular movement against what the Dalai Lama has called "cultural genocide."

Tibet is proving again and again that Beijing needs to start a dialogue with the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan people to accommodate their aspirations as a distinct ethnic and cultural entity.

The CCP's one-size-fits-all approach of swamping outlying regions with Han Chinese and obliterating minority cultures is not conducive to creating a "harmonious society," a buzz word in the Chinese political lexicon.

The Soviets tried this and it eventually failed because the entire system was top-heavy with the Communist Party controlling levers of power within Russia proper and its outlying regions.

China's leaders believe that they have learnt from the Soviet Union's mistakes and are, therefore, doing things differently.

Late Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) believed that former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev's perestroika was a crucial factor in the Soviet Union's collapse. Deng wasn't going to make the same mistake -- hence the tanks let loose on students during the 1989 democracy movement.

Deng looked for economic growth to make China a powerful country. And the prerequisite for this was the CCP's monopoly of power to maintain and ensure political and social stability.

For him, the Western model of democracy was a recipe for chaos and disaster. His successors continue to follow him on this course.

China's guiding mantra is economic growth at all costs to build up the military capability to throw its weight around.

It is as if all China's problems will somehow be resolved once its economic, political and military power make it a force to be reckoned with.

It is as if all the humiliations suffered under Western tutelage and Japanese aggression will be washed away with China's rebirth as the new Middle Kingdom.

Only then might its communist rulers attend to issues of social equity and some form of political participation. But it is a decision the CCP will make on its own schedule.

But as the events in Tibet show, things have a way of getting out of control unless channels and institutions are created to involve people in their own governance.

It is not that the Tibetans are asking for separation. Indeed, the Dalai Lama is advocating only genuine autonomy, with China remaining the sovereign power.

But Beijing doesn't trust the Dalai Lama. They are waiting for him to die so they can appoint their own Dalai Lama, having outlawed the process of reincarnation as traditionally practiced in the selection of a new Dalai Lama.

It is the arrogance of the system and its leaders, whether it is in relation to Tibet or China proper, which is at the root of China's problems. This will be their undoing, as happened with the Soviet Union.

Beijing believes that by choosing economic growth as its priority it has managed to avoid the fate of the Soviet Union after Gorbachev sought to push relative political liberalism.

But it collapsed largely because it was too late for Gorbachev or any other leader to save it.

The rot that consumed the Soviet Union over the years had much to do with the lack of a connection between its political system (a monopoly of power wielded by the Communist Party) and the people.

Its leadership thought it knew best, and people had virtually no input into the decision-making process of a narrow cabal that was dismally ignorant, indifferent and brutal.

China and the former Soviet Union are not comparable in all respects, but their Leninist political system, where the Communist Party exercises a monopoly on power, is a common thread.

And if the Soviet Union eventually collapsed because its leadership had no use for political diversity and popular participation, China is unlikely to fare any better over time.

The developments in Tibet are a barometer of things to come. All of China is racked by social unrest, with thousands of reported and unreported incidents of popular protest every year.

According to official figures, there were 87,000 cases of social unrest involving 15 or more people in China in 2006.

And this despite all the machinery of repression available to the authorities.

Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.

Whatever China Does, Tibet Will Demand Freedom

2008-03-20T07:26:00.000-07:00

By Ed Douglas of The Observer, London

Putting the Olympic flame on the summit of Mount Everest must have seemed a great idea to the planning committee of the Beijing Olympics. What better expression of China's inexorable rise to superpower status could there be? Everest was the crowning glory for Queen Elizabeth II's coronation in 1953. So it would be for China's political elite.

Now the game is up. On Friday, a friend who organizes expeditions to Everest called me on his way to Kathmandu for the start of the climbing season. He had just heard that the Nepalese authorities, at China's request, had decided to stop climbers going on the mountain until after those carrying the Olympic flame had been and gone.

It was, on China's part, an act of frantic paranoia. Beijing had only just banned foreign climbers from China's side of the mountain, fearing pro-Tibet demonstrations. Now Beijing was bullying Nepal, distracted by a chaotic election campaign, to do China's bidding. China recently offered Nepal more than US$200 million for two new hydroelectric dams and increasingly calls the tune in Kathmandu, so there wasn't much argument.

With people dying in Lhasa and Tibetan exiles agitating in India and Nepal, what happens to a bunch of Western tourists may not seem so important. True, people living around Everest will lose a lot of money, but that's no big deal in the scheme of things.

It's what this says about China's position in Tibet that is so revealing. In a matter of days, the self-assurance of a regime that promised to light a beacon to the world on the summit of Everest has been utterly undermined.

For the last 60 years of Chinese occupation and colonialism, the Tibetan people have been starved, murdered, tortured, imprisoned and marginalized in their own land.

But even now, after decades of effort to subjugate Tibet, the Chinese authorities couldn't guarantee that they wouldn't be humiliated in Tibet's most remote, and easily controlled, location -- the slopes of the peak Tibetans call Chomolungma.

Dreadful abuses

Rather than have Western climbers unfurling banners to demand a free Tibet during a live broadcast beamed around the world, they have preferred the embarrassment of closing the peak to outsiders, as they did until 1980, four years after the death of Mao Zedong (毛澤東).

It's an admission of failure. It must be galling for Beijing. Following violence in the late 1980s and another period of dreadful human-rights abuses, the Chinese Communist Party had embarked on a policy of colossal capital investment in Tibet to develop its sclerotic economy. If old-school oppression didn't work, why not try consumerism?

Leaving aside the inequalities between Tibetans and migrant Han Chinese, there's no question that the Chinese have done a huge amount to improve the economic conditions of the indigenous population. Drive along the highway between Lhasa and Shigatse, seat of the disputed Panchen Lama, No. 2 in the Tibetan Buddhist hierarchy, and you can see bright new houses being built to replace the smoky hovels many Tibetans used to occupy.

True, part of this resettlement program is aimed at settling nomadic herders whose mobility threatens China's grip. China recalls how nomads in eastern Tibet put up strong resistance following the invasion in 1950. But it would be a gross caricature to deny China's attempts to bring economic development to a disadvantaged region.

China says it rehoused 10 percent of Tibet's population by 2006, building 279,000 new homes. Now that's progress. The high-tech, high-altitude railway, opened in 2006 and tying China more firmly to its Tibetan fiefdom, has brought a wave of new investment along with more migration. When I first visited Lhasa in 1993, people still defecated in the street. Now it is a modern and much bigger city, albeit a largely Chinese one.

Tibet campaigners often argue that this combination of investment and migration will swamp Tibetan's ancient culture and snuff out resistance to China's annexation. If that was the plan, it seems to have failed.

Beijing predictably blamed the Dalai Lama and his "splittist clique" for masterminding the riots that gripped Lhasa last week. But reports filtering out from the Jokhang temple area, the holiest of holies for Tibetan Buddhists, suggest the anger on the streets is real and instinctive. It is the resentment Tibetans feel at the inequality they face in their day-to-day lives.

Han migrants

Life might have got better for some Tibetans, but they see Han Chinese migrants doing a whole lot better and at their expense. The new railway might bring more money to Lhasa, but it is also carrying back Tibet's vast mineral deposits and timber to feed China's galloping economic growth.

It's inevitable, given his huge profile and the popularity of his cause, that many Westerners see the Dalai Lama and Tibet as synonymous. The Dalai Lama remains a source of hope for many Tibetans, but beneath the charm and exoticism of his story, Tibet's agonies should be familiar ground to any student of colonialism. It is that inequality, and the despair it brings, that feeds Tibet's resistance.

But Beijing is fixated by a personal and bitter campaign against a man regarded as an icon around the world. Rather than allow the possibility that he has influence inside Tibet, and affection outside it, China courts ridicule by peddling transparently false statements about him. An example. In November, the Dalai Lama used his prerogative as a reincarnate lama to suggest his rebirth wouldn't take place within Tibet.

He has said this before, but the statement launched a typically petulant response from Beijing, suggesting the Dalai Lama's statement "violated [the] religious rituals and historical conventions of Tibetan Buddhism."

Given the wholesale destruction of monasteries in the 1950s and 1960s, and renewed efforts in the 1990s to crack down on religious freedoms and the strict controls placed on monks within Tibet, the idea that atheist Beijing should offer advice on the traditions of Tibetan Buddhism was understandably laughed off by the Dalai Lama's office.

China must hope, and friends of Tibet must fear, that when the Dalai Lama dies, much of the momentum toward Tibet's eventual freedom will die with him. Don't count on it. Tibet will still be a country that is ethnically and culturally very different from China. It's not a question of preserving Tibet's ancient culture -- that hangs on in remote villages -- but it's mostly gone in Lhasa. It would have changed anyway. Mobile phones and the Internet would have undermined Tibet's oppressively religious polity, already being reformed by the current Dalai Lama, just as they are doing to China's version of communism.

It's a question of identity. The fact remains that Tibetans feel Tibetan. No amount of economic development will change that. It's also true that China is implacable in its determination to stay put. Only a settlement that allows Tibetans genuine freedoms and economic equality will bring lasting peace. And that means meaningful agreements with the Dalai Lama. Only then will Tibetans begin to trust the Chinese.

Right now, China is stoking a future of ethnic conflict that will take generations and huge resources to solve. That conflict is deeply damaging to China's image abroad as a progressive and modern country.

The real question is what does China have to fear from a more independent Tibet?

It is the risk of difference, of heterogeneity that frightens China -- a fear of multiculturalism.

Beijing's Not Bringing Cookies

2008-03-20T07:22:00.000-07:00

Lee Long-Hwa of New York

As Taiwan goes to the presidential polls, it is imperative the nation notes and understands the situation in Tibet. For those Taiwanese who dream of becoming an integral part of China, it is important to understand that the treatment of Tibet and Tibetans is only a small sample of what lies in store for Taiwan should it become part of China.

For those Taiwanese who believe that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) represents a new day for big money in Taiwan, where Taiwan can co-exist with China in peace and prosperity, it is important to understand that there is no "co-existence" in Beijing's vocabulary.

The only definition of "co-existence" for Beijing is "undying loyalty to the Communist Party, upon pain of death."

Ma talks about 30 years of peace with Beijing. But Beijing has murdered Tibet's culture and autonomy over a period of 50 years.

Are you skeptical? Fifty years of Beijing's relationship with the Dalai Lama should have proved this point to the world already.

If a nation cannot co-exist with the Dalai Lama, a leader who personifies peace, just who in the world can they co-exist with?

Nor will Beijing march into Taipei with guns drawn. Its annexation of Taiwan is being planned in far more subtle ways, with or without the KMT's full complicity.

Wearing grins on their faces and talking about social harmony, cross-strait peace and a "one-China market," politicians on both sides are misrepresenting the underlying predatory nature of Beijing to the Taiwanese public.

The plans call for peace, but as soon as the guard is down, as soon as someone decides there is no immediate threat, the dam will burst and the flood of China's overwhelming tide will overwhelm Taiwan.

It will first come from the sheer numbers of Chinese visitors and then immigrants, money, millions of workers, hollowing out invaluable industries, and -- when Taiwan is utterly cowed and dependent on Beijing's succor -- blackmail.

Once overwhelmed, all hope is lost.

Beijing will not treat Taiwan like Hong Kong (which is bad enough), but rather like Tibet, where right now, today, at this very moment, soldiers are conducting house-to-house searches for monks supporting the Dalai Lama, looking for pictures of him or any other evidence of loyalty.

How long before Chinese soldiers are running from house to house in Taipei searching for "splittists"? Where will Ma be then? Standing in front, protecting those houses? Or running along beside the soldiers, aiding and abetting?

You decide.

With President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) at least I know they would die fighting.

They've already sacrificed themselves for Taiwan's democracy before.

I haven't heard anything from Ma that would convince me he wouldn't be on the first plane to Hong Kong (or New York or Beijing)

For those going to the polls, Tibet should serve as a loud and blaring wake up call. For those who think things have changed and that Beijing is a kinder and gentler adversary, wake up.

The predatory neighbor is not coming to visit Taiwan bearing cookies. It is coming bearing dictatorship and tyranny. Vote for anything less than complete vigilance against it, and you are inviting the beast to a dinner where you are the main dish.

And if you doubt that, if you are skeptical that Beijing could do that, just read about Tibet right now.

It's real. It's happening. The actions of Beijing in Tibet are no different than its attitude toward Taiwan.

And it's coming, unless you vote to keep it out.

You decide.

Passion of the Protesters

2008-03-20T07:21:00.000-07:00

Nothing to Hide

2008-03-20T07:13:00.000-07:00

Can Ma Control the KMT Old Guard?

2008-03-18T18:12:00.000-07:00

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was in full damage control mode last week, profusely apologizing for the arrogant behavior of his party's legislators and demonstrating, once again, that he has a long way to go before he can control the party that he is effectively supposed to lead.

When Ma became KMT party chairman in 2005, he promised to lead an opposition that would be willing to work with the ruling party. But time and again, from the failure to pass a reasonable arms budget to the KMT's stonewalling of President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) choice of prosecutor general -- a candidate Ma openly supported -- conservative elements in the party threw egg on Ma's face.

Last week's apology came on the heels of KMT legislators Alex Fai (費鴻泰), Lo Ming-tsai (羅明才), Chen Chieh (陳杰) and Luo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) barging into Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) Taipei campaign office on Wednesday, alleging that state-owned First Commercial Bank had waived the office's rent.

The legislators' behavior sparked verbal and physical clashes with Hsieh supporters, who accusedethem of trespassing. One might call this kind of behavior astounding if it weren't in keeping with what we have come to expect from politicians not held accountable for their actions.

Exceptional, however, were statements made by Ma at a press conference a few days later, which fell on the third anniversary of China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law -- which allows Beijing to use "non-peaceful" means against Taiwan if it sees fit.

"Taiwan enjoys sovereignty, and Taiwan's future should only be decided by Taiwanese people," Ma said.

He then went on to say that he adheres to a "three noes policy" of no unification, no independence and no use of force.

This was a significant departure from statements he made in 2006 to a Hong Kong newspaper, when he said that the "Taiwan problem should be jointly decided by the people on both sides of the [Taiwan] Strait."

Leaving aside the bizarre logic of a "sovereign country" needing to avoid statements on whether or not it is independent, Ma's remarks about Taiwan's sovereignty should be seen as a partial reaction to the behavior of Fai and his ilk.

His language has as much to do with attracting middle-of-the-road voters and distracting the electorate from the presumptuous behavior of KMT legislators as it does sending a symbolic message to the old-boy network that Ma wants to put his stamp on the party. This is why he broke ranks with party ideology.

Ma is not stupid. He knows that the anachronistic pro-China policies of the KMT must give way to localization. But it isn't hard to imagine that a Ma presidency would see him apologizing for and battling with the KMT's old guard still holding on to the reins of power behind the scenes.

Many voters perceive Ma as a politician with integrity and the best chance the KMT has at reform. He has promoted this image for three years without being able to back it up through concrete action.

So the question remains: Can he drag the KMT out of its authoritarian past and bring it more in line with Taiwan's democratic future? And more specifically, does Ma have the ability to take control of his party?

The behavior of KMT legislators and Ma's aura of weakness suggest that he does not.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 19, 2008.

Siew's Ideas Contradict KMT Policy

2008-03-18T18:10:00.000-07:00

By Yang Wei-chung 楊偉中, translated by Angela Hong

As the debate over the "cross-strait common market" heats up, how the average citizen understands the issue is becoming important. Faced with public doubt, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate, Vincent Siew (蕭萬長), have provided several basic responses.

First, the "cross-strait common market" is not their campaign platform. Second, the "cross-strait common market" focuses on economics, whereas the "one China market" is a political label. Last, they do not wish to open Taiwan to Chinese labor or agricultural products that are now banned.

But these arguments are dishonest and contradictory. The foreword, policy outline and action plan of the KMT's policy guidelines, passed during the 17th KMT National Congress in August 2005, all promote the "cross-strait common market." Would the KMT presidential candidate not implement the party's plans? If the guidelines passed by the highest authority of the KMT are empty words, how can we trust other promises of the party?

In Siew's book One Plus One is Two ? the Road Toward a Cross-Strait Common Market, he mentions the great political significance of such a market on page 17, debunking the explanation that the common market is limited to economic importance. On page 31, Siew claims that the "cross-strait common market" will become the foundational structure for the integration of cross-strait politics. He believes that Taiwan should participate in the peaceful rise of China.

On page 121, Siew says that economic partnership is the best starting point for peaceful cross-strait integration. Economic integration has various degrees. Why is the high-level goal of a common market the main policy objective?

Siew says on page 142 that only the emergence of a "cross-strait common market" can bring about total economic, social and political integration. To use the common market as the main strategy for cross-strait political integration is Siew's core concern. By claiming that the common market is purely economic, the pan-blue camp is contradicting itself.

On pages 144 and 152, Siew further emphasizes that the so-called "1992 consensus" must be accepted as the basis of negotiation for cross-strait economic integration. From this perspective, how is the Democratic Progressive Party's labeling of Siew's policy a "one China market" an insult?

The pan-blue camp's list of things that will not be open to China in a common market is also self-contradictory. In his book, Siew says on page 158 that the creation of a free-trade area and the progression toward a common market relies most importantly upon a series of policy and regulation adjustments, based on the free and liberal flow of goods, labor, funds, services, information and other production resources.

To achieve a common market, there needs to be intermediate stages -- such as establishing a free trade agreement (FTA) or a closer economic partnership agreement, as in the case between China and Hong Kong -- both of which involve the free flow of products and labor.

Siew is clearly aware of this, but he ignores the implications of the common market without providing any solutions to its possible problems. Is this the attitude of a responsible politician?

In the negotiations of the WTO or other FTAs, non-democratic and black-box procedures often draw heavy criticism from social rights groups. Ma and Siew have promised that future cross-strait negotiations will be transparent. However, though they have not yet been elected, and the negotiations have not yet begun, there are already a number of lies and contradictions. How can people believe their promises?

Narrow protectionist policies are of course not the final solution for average citizens. However, unlimited deregulation of trade and investment would also cause corresponding problems.

Faced with the "one China market" debate, we don't need lies or a war of words. We need honest politicians and active concern from the public to forge our own future with our own actions.

Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.

Ma Unclear on Chinese Diplomas

2008-03-18T18:08:00.000-07:00

By Tung Chen-yuan 童振源, translated by Angela Hong

With only a few days to the presidential election, we're still seeing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) dodge and deny various important policies that he had previously proposed, including the "cross-strait common market" and recognition of Chinese diplomas.

As election day arrives, Ma is purposefully distorting his own proposals and does not dare to stand up for or defend his own policies -- to the point of accusing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) of discrediting him.

Take the issue of whether the government should recognize Chinese diplomas for example: This is a serious public policy concern, and Ma should give a clear explanation to the voters.

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Hsieh have both clearly said that they are unwilling to recognize Chinese diplomas. KMT and People First Party legislators have repeatedly demanded that the government do otherwise. They have done all they can to pressure the government and they often encourage Taiwanese students to seek education in China.

In April 2006, after the Chinese Communist Party-KMT economic forums, Lai Shyh-bao (賴士葆), a KMT legislator and an important member of the Ma camp, immediately pushed for a petition in the legislature and successfully changed Article 22 of the Act Governing Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (兩岸人民關係條例), demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas obtained by Taiwanese students so that they can qualify for professional and government examinations and be allowed to work in the Taiwanese education system.

On April 26, 2006, Ma, as the chairman of the KMT, promised that the party would push for the recognition of Chinese diplomas and complimented Cheng Kung University president Wu Jing (吳京) for daring to recommend the recognition of Chinese diplomas while minister of education.

On April 28, Ma went so far as to say that if the future chair of the Mainland Affairs Council had a diploma from Beijing University, then the two sides could better communicate, and cited this as a supporting argument for his proposal of diploma recognition.

After becoming the KMT's presidential candidate, Ma, in a speech at National Chung Hsing University on June 18 last year, criticized the DPP government's refusal to recognize Chinese diplomas as an isolationist policy.

Regardless of whether one supports recognizing Chinese diplomas or not, as a presidential candidate, Ma should explain himself clearly to Taiwanese voters.

When Hsieh criticized the potential impact of Ma's proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma responded that Hsieh was twisting the truth.

On Feb. 29, after three years of openly proposing that Taiwan recognize Chinese diplomas, Ma amended the proposal for the first time, claiming that while Chinese diplomas would be recognized, people with Chinese diplomas would not be allowed to take examinations for professional qualifications. This obscures the focus of the policy debate and goes against Ma's original intent.

On March 8, Ma changed tack again and said that his proposal to recognize Chinese diplomas was aimed at facilitating cross-strait academic exchange, since otherwise it would be unreasonable to have to consider professors of Beijing University as uneducated if they came to Taiwan. Then Ma altered the focus further by emphasizing that he would not allow Chinese nationals to take qualification exams in Taiwan.

From demanding that the government recognize Chinese diplomas, to not allowing holders of Chinese diplomas to take professional examinations, to claiming that Chinese professors need to have diplomas to conduct academic exchanges in Taiwan, to not allowing Chinese nationals to take professional examinations in Taiwan -- Ma is constantly changing his position.

The pan-blue camp already controls almost three quarters of the legislature. If Ma becomes president, no one would be able to stop the government from recognizing Chinese diplomas.

Mr. Ma, please demonstrate your accountability and character by explaining and defending your policies: What is the purpose, and what would be the result of recognizing Chinese diplomas? Don't obscure and redirect the focus, and don't lie to voters just to become president.

Tung Chen-yuan is an assistant professor at the Sun Yat-sen Graduate Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities at National Chengchi University.

Time to End the Media's Distortion of the Truth

2008-03-18T18:04:00.000-07:00

By Lillian Wang 王泰俐, translated by Eddy Chang

The economy has been the main focus of the presidential campaign. In addition to the unfavorable domestic and global economic situation, this is the result of the "relative deprivation" created by some media outlets in recent years.

They have used the public's enthusiasm for comparison to generate a sense of envy if others have something that they do not; or a sense of frustration if people believe they deserve something that they do not have.

The manipulation of "relative deprivation" has successfully dominated the campaign, crowding out other issues. The influence of the media on this issue should not be underestimated.

By controlling the social atmosphere, the media is able to shape public opinion in such a way that it can achieve predictable results.

Even voters who aren't particularly interested in the economy -- preferring to focus on Taiwan's democratic development, sovereignty and future direction -- also suffer deeply from "relative deprivation." The issues they value have been overlooked by much of the media, as if they don't exist. This is also why the Intellectuals' Alliance has attempted to provide diverse options for thought to voters before the election.

Much of the public has a sense of "relative deprivation" because of the media's unbalanced reporting, which has been lacking in diversity since the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) came to power in 2000.

Take the major political events and social conflicts for example. Certain media channels report only parts of such stories to create a so-called "social reality" that meets their own objectives.

The public has been deprived of its right to know the truth. The biased coverage of the intrusion into DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) campaign headquarters by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers last Wednesday was an excellent example of this kind of manipulation.

Judging from the media's preset issues, the interpretation of both political and economic events, the partial reporting of certain news and political commentary shows, there appears to be a large gap between the supporters of the two camps in terms of access to media information, an important social resource.

Taiwan will elect a new president on Saturday. Some media outlets are portraying the political situation as the coming of a "new dawn."

However, given the prevailing media bias, we can hardly be so optimistic. If KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is elected, the media's practice of "what we say counts" will only worsen. Media resource distribution may even become more uneven.

But if Hsieh is elected, couldn't such uneven distribution be improved in the face of a ruling minority and an opposition majority?

Now is the time to keep such "relative deprivation" by the media from being employed again in the next election, causing even more social conflict.

Lillian Wang is an associate professor of journalism at National Chengchi University.

It Could Happen To You

2008-03-18T18:01:00.000-07:00

By Anonymous, of Guangzhou, China

I am Italian. I live and work in China. All the news about Tibet is blocked and filtered out, including YouTube. People here are blind.

No one has any interest in politics: This is the way China is; this is not freedom.

Taiwan is one of the most free countries on this planet, according to its Freedom House ranking -- more free than my own nation. In Taiwan, news is not censored and people have the freedom to hold different opinions.

I really hope and wish that before the coming election, Taiwanese realize what Taiwan would become if it moved closer to China.

I really hope Taiwanese will wake up and choose the party farthest from Chinese ideology, because what is happening in Lhasa could one day happen in Taipei, too.

For years, Beijing has been sending hundreds and hundreds of Chinese people to Tibet in order to make Tibetans a minority in their own land. In my country we call this ethnic cleansing and one day that could happen in Taiwan, too.

Identity is very important. Where we're from and who we are -- don't let that ever be erased, because our identity is our DNA. It is all we are about.

People here in China have no identity, no rights and no hope -- just some stupid TV programs to brainwash them.

Has Ma Ying-Jeou Seen the Light?

2008-03-17T17:02:00.000-07:00

It seemed like a welcome shift last week when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said that the fate of Taiwan should be decided by Taiwanese alone. Ma reiterated that position in newspaper ads and signed a declaration condemning the "Anti-Secession" Law enacted by China in 2005 or any other policies that would "hurt the Taiwanese people's feelings."

Even Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) has applauded Ma's apparent turnaround, the same Ma who, in 2006, had argued that the future of Taiwan should be decided by both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Whether this rhetorical shift is heartfelt -- a coming out of sorts, a la former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in the 1990s -- or mere politicking has yet to be clarified, but the fact remains that Ma is saying these things publicly and within earshot of Beijing. It wouldn't be the first time in the history of democratic politics that, as election day looms, parties drift toward the center.

And in Taiwan, the center is the "status quo." However uncomfortable it is, the "status quo" is, ironically, quite comfortable. It is the invisible enemy we know rather than the unknown of a sudden shift. It's also a vote-winner, as maintaining that comfortable level of uncertainty seems to be what Taiwanese of all stripes want most.

Welcome as Ma's "determination to defend Taiwan's sovereignty" might be -- and let us assume, for the sake of argument, that he means what he said -- his vow to create friendly cross-strait relations might be more difficult to achieve than he thinks. For upon hearing his comments, Beijing could be forgiven for accusing Ma of himself "heightening cross-strait tensions," in similar fashion to what Ma in the same breath accused the DPP of doing over the past eight years.

Should Ma decide to go down this path, he would soon find -- as every other president before him has found -- that peace across the Taiwan Strait, or its absence, is not in the hands of Taiwanese and their leaders, but in those of the regime in Beijing, which seems to think that time is on its side and that the annexation of Taiwan is inevitable.

In recent years, Beijing had placed its hopes in the KMT, which it saw as a surrogate, a backdoor entry to Taiwan. If Ma shuts that door, it will be 1996 all over again, with the additional layer of 12 years of budding Taiwanese consciousness. Should that happen, all that talk about a common market, of small, medium and big links and friendlier ties will mean very little.

If Ma becomes president, he will soon find out why his predecessors Lee and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) were so reviled in Beijing.

And soon enough, following his rude awakening, life would go back to normal, back to the "status quo." The economy would be no better, no worse, and the main question Ma would need to answer would be the one Lee and Chen had to juggle: How to defend Taiwan against a giant whose pride has yet again been hurt, and who is realizing that the longer the "status quo" prevails, the more time is on Taiwan's side.

Ultimately, Beijing's eyesight is blurry. Lee, Chen, Ma -- for all it cares, Taiwanese on Saturday will be voting for "Ma Teng-bian" or "Hsieh Ying-hui." It doesn't care who is in power in Taiwan. What Beijing covets is real estate, all 35,980km2 of it.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 18, 2008.

Choosing Taiwan's Future

2008-03-16T17:41:00.000-07:00

By Andreas Forster

As a long-time resident in Taiwan and someone with the bad experience of living for 24 years under communist rule in East Germany, I want to say: Wake up, Taiwanese. Wake up now as you are going to choose where Taiwan will go in future. The tragic events in Tibet should make it clear for everyone what will happen if China rules Taiwan and if the KMT returns to power in Taiwan.

A return to KMT rule in Taiwan will lead to China ruling Taiwan someday, and all the hard earned achievements of developing a democracy will be gone forever.

Making the right choice on Saturday is essential. Never before in history have people had such a big responsibility as they do with the presidential election in Taiwan.

Taiwanese will choose the way their country will go. You will not get a second chance. Take it and protect Taiwan.

Our thoughts are with the upright people in Tibet, and we should encourage them. If the Taiwanese choose correctly on Saturday they will ensure that China's war against independence, freedom and democracy will not happen here.

Colonialism in Taiwan

2008-03-16T17:37:00.000-07:00

By Samuel Yang of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

For many Taiwanese, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime was another unfriendly foreign colonial power.

When President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was elected in 2000, the people of Taiwan celebrated a major breakthrough in their struggle for democracy. Unfortunately,Taiwan's democracy has been sabotaged by the KMT.

Despite the election of a DPP administration, the KMT has been able to control the schools, local governments and military with unfair distribution of governmental funds and privileges.

The guaranteed 18 percent interest offered specifically to those privileged groups is just one of the many examples.

Such undemocratic tactics have been supported by the KMT-dominated legislature, judiciary and the media. The resounding defeat of the DPP in the January legislative election attests to the KMT's continued influence.

Nonetheless, Taiwan's democracy has been able to prevent the KMT from perpetrating its autocracy. Therefore, the party is now cooperating with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and advocates eventual unification with China.

Taiwanese should be alert to not only the rising political power of the KMT, which might lead to a resurrection of the old autocracy, but also to the possibility of annexation by China, the colonial rule of which would be worse than that of the past KMT regime or Japan.

Both the KMT and CCP have made a show of becoming more democratic to deflect criticisms of their autocracy and rampant corruption.

The inability of the KMT and CCP to embrace democracy is deeply rooted in Chinese culture, which instills the virtue of citizens' loyalty to the rulers but grossly neglects the fact that the citizens are the masters of the government -- the fundamental principle of modern civilized governance.

The KMT's autocracy and undemocratic disregard of law and order is largely responsible for the recurrent political turmoil in Taiwan since World War II. It is most ironic that media biased in favor of the KMT and CCP have shaped domestic and international opinions that have been detrimental to the democratic development.

The public has been misled to believe that the KMT and CCP are the salvation of Taiwan and China.

While China repeatedly condemns past colonial occupations by foreign powers, it practices the same old colonialism by occupying Tibet with force and repression. It also intends to invade Taiwan against the will of the Taiwanese.

The expectation that China will become a democracy might be the underlying motivation of foreign investors. Unfortunately, China's population is so misled by a biased media that China's democratization is impossible for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, the country is a security threat to not only Taiwan, but the entire world.

On March 22, the people of Taiwan must use their votes to reject the undemocratic KMT, and send an unequivocal signal to China that a Tibet-style colonial occupation of Taiwan is not acceptable.

Referendum Act Must Be Overhauled to Be Valid

2008-03-16T17:36:00.000-07:00

By Lin Kien-tsu 林健次, translated by Anna Stiggelbout

The public is the master of the country. When the public elects representatives, this does not change the fact that the public is the master, and the representatives are their servants. If servants turn around and limit the rights of the public to have a choice in resolving public matters, then the servants lose their legitimacy, and the public has the right to tell these servants to step down.

The Referendum Act (公投法) stipulates that for a referendum to be valid, there must be a turnout of more than half of all eligible voters. This threshold is even higher than that of the presidential and legislative elections, and basically limits the right of the public to make policy decisions. In making this law, the legislature violated the fundamental spirit of the representative system and thus lost its legitimacy.

The legislature is now made up of lawmakers who have been elected under the single member district, two vote system. To be elected, they only needed to win more votes than their opponents. For the legislators-at-large, the number of votes cast for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) combined amounted to less than half of the population. If a legislature made up of legislators elected by these amounts of votes doesn't see a problem with the Referendum Act turning the servants into masters, then it has lost its legitimacy.

The KMT has won an almost three-quarter majority in the legislature in an election with conditions far less strict than those in the Referendum Act. Many people, including some KMT supporters, are concerned that absolute power will lead to absolute corruption. These concerns are another indication of the lack of legitimacy of the legislature.

Many people worry that if Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) becomes president, this will bring the KMT even more power and corruption. Ma emphasizes that he respects the will of the public. KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) also says referendums are sacred, and that the KMT would never abuse its power, even if it was the sole ruling party. If this is true, the easiest way to convince the public of the sincerity of Ma and the KMT, and solve the legislature's legitimacy crisis, would be to lower the referendum threshold to the same level as that for the legislative elections.

The KMT is against holding two referendums in tandem with the presidential election; they say this is using the referendum to "hijack" the poll. But in the Jan. 12 legislative elections, the number of votes cast for the DPP and KMT combined was equivalent to less than half of the population. This shows that even if the referendums were held in accordance with the same standards as the elections, and the DPP and KMT worked together, the referendums would still not necessarily obtain the minimum number of votes, let alone if they were held separately.

If the KMT really has misgivings about elections being "hijacked," it should insist on holding the referendums separately, instead of finding excuses to suppress public opinion and referendums. The legislature should amend the Referendum Act. Only in this way can the KMT lend any legitimacy to its position of holding the referendums separately from the presidential election.

Ma is the one in control of the KMT. If he could lead the KMT- controlled legislature to amend the Referendum Act before the elections and show his ability to lead the KMT's legislators, he would eradicate any suspicion among the public that his election would lead to an abuse of power by the KMT.

This article supports the Nuke-4 Referendum Initiative Association, and its hunger strike in front of the legislature, and expresses my respect for the group.

Lin Kien-tsu is a member of Taiwan Heart and the Taiwan Association of University Professors.

Ma Is On the Wrong Side of History

2008-03-16T17:34:00.000-07:00

By Gerrit van der Wees

As Taiwan prepares for the presidential election, the people face a choice for their future. This goes beyond a choice for the next four years: It is more than a continuation of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government under the new leadership of Frank Hsieh (謝長廷), or a return to the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) under new leadership, that of Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).

The choice between the two men also harbors longer-term consequences for the future of the country: continuation of the trend towards increasing emphasis on Taiwan's own identity and treatment of Taiwan as a nation-state in its own right, or closer ties with Beijing, eventually drifting towards absorption by China in one way or another.

Hsieh is an advocate of the former line: Building on the legacy of the fight for democracy in the 1970s and 1980s, and the consolidation of democracy under former president Lee Teng-hui and President Chen Shui-bian(陳水扁), he will carefully maneuver to safeguard Taiwan's sovereignty and expand its international position, while attempting to keep China at bay.

Ma is an advocate of eventual unification, but realizes that he cannot move too swiftly since this would anger the Taiwanese majority and make the US and Japan -- already apprehensive about China's military buildup -- increasingly nervous, so he will emphasize the "status quo" while gradually pushing the envelope toward closer ties with China.

How will they perform if they are elected? How will they stand up to pressure from China -- or from the US for that matter? Are they committed to democracy?

To get a glimpse into their character, it is useful to examine how they acted and reacted in an earlier era: when Taiwan was suffering under martial law in the 1970s and 1980s, and when they rose to prominence, each in his own right.

Both Hsieh and Ma were educated to be lawyers. But there the similarity ends.

Hsieh is a native Taiwanese, who became well-known in Taiwan in 1980, when -- together with a number of other lawyers including Chen -- he voluntarily took up the defense of eight prominent leaders of the tangwai (outside-the-party) democracy movement (including Vice President Annette Lu [呂秀蓮] and Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu [陳菊]), who had been arrested and imprisoned by the KMT regime on spurious political charges.

Hsieh was thus willing to stick his neck out and stand up for justice when it counted -- and when few others dared to do so. In the 1980s he became a member of the Taipei City Council, and later was elected to the Legislative Yuan. He was a founding member of the DPP in 1986. Ten years later, in 1996, he was the DPP's vice presidential candidate in Taiwan's first-ever democratic presidential elections (together with Peng Ming-min), but lost to Lee.

Ma, on the other hand, is a Mainlander, who was born in Hong Kong and whose parents came over to Taiwan with Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). His father was a high-ranking KMT official, and young Ma grew up in the political elite of the Chinese Nationalists. In the 1970s he went to Harvard for his graduate studies, but several of his Taiwanese fellow students complained that Ma was a "student spy" who collected data for the secret police in Taiwan.

After his return to Taiwan In 1981, he quickly rose to prominence within the KMT. He started as an aide and personal translator for then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), and in 1984 became deputy-secretary general of the KMT. In 1993 he was appointed minister of justice by Lee and served in that position until 1996.

Let us examine what his position was during the crucial moments in Taiwan's transition to democracy: In 1985-1986, when Taiwan was still under martial law, he was an ardent defender of martial law, arguing that it enhanced "stability" on the island. He also defended the long prison sentences given to proponents of democracy and human rights.

In lengthy letters to foreign governments and political parties which expressed concern about the lack of democracy in Taiwan, Ma waxed eloquently in defense of the indefensible.

Finally, after many hearings and resolutions in the US Congress by senators such as Ted Kennedy and Claiborne Pell and representatives Jim Leach and Steven Solarz, and after increasing pressure from the bottom up in Taiwan, Chiang Ching-kuo relented and lifted martial law in 1987. Ma had been on the wrong side of history.

Almost the same thing happened in 1991 and 1992, when the democratic movement started to push for abolishment of the "eternal" legislators who had been elected in China in 1947, and who were in their 80s and 90s still representing "China" in the legislature and National Assembly. Again, Ma came out against such changes and wanted to maintain a semblance of "China" representation in the legislature.

Fortunately, Lee had vision and pushed through the legislative reforms. Again, Ma was on the wrong side of history.

Fascinatingly, three years later, the same pattern occurred: Lee started to push for direct presidential elections -- to replace the anachronistic system in which the KMT-controlled National Assembly had rubberstamped the KMT choice for president.

Ma was one of the KMT opponents of this move toward full-fledged democracy. Again, his instincts had been to preserve an outdated status quo, and oppose democratic change.

Ma was a follower, who went along with developments when they became inevitable, while Hsieh stood up when it counted, and defended his principles.

The choice for the people of Taiwan is thus between someone who has opposed democratic change, and wants to edge closer to a repressive, undemocratic China, and someone who has been at the forefront of democratic change, and wants to propel Taiwan forwards in the international family of nations.

It will be a decisive moment in Taiwan's history.

Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.

Ma Misleading on Unity

2008-03-12T19:23:00.000-07:00

Hanna Shen of Taipei

During Sunday's televised presidential debate, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) used the cooperation between EU members as a model for successful economic cooperation between China and Taiwan, or what has been called a "one China market policy."

The comparison is misleading. EU cooperation has been built over years on very strict principles, none of which apply to Taiwan and China.

The EU is composed of 27 independent countries. In other words, each member of the EU recognizes the other members as sovereign nations. This is the foundation for cooperation between European countries and a fundamental condition that does not apply to the relationship between China and Taiwan, as Beijing considers Taiwan a rebel province.

To join the EU a nation must meet the Copenhagen criteria laid down at the June 1993 European Council in Copenhagen, Denmark, which states that a nation must be a stable democracy, respect human rights and the rule of law, protect minorities and have a functioning market economy.

In other words, most of European countries want to form a unity with nations that are politically and economically free, humanitarian and believe that no one is above the law.

Again, none of the above-mentioned applies to China.

Is it then in the interest of Taiwan to join a "one China market" and economically unify with a country that believes in the rule of power, violates human rights and oppresses minorities -- a country that is still far from a free market economy.

Using the EU as an example shows that cooperation and a common market can be built only among countries that have the institutions to preserve democratic governance and human rights.

A New Twist On "Made in India"

2008-03-12T19:18:00.000-07:00

By Amelia Gentleman, of the New York Times news service, Mumbai, India

Outsourcing is taking a new direction as India's skilled doctors and liberal laws combine to create a new kind of baby boom

Gher and his partner, who are Israeli, plan eventually to tell their child about being made in India, in the womb of a stranger, with the egg of a Mumbai housewife they picked from an Internet lineup.

The embryo was formed in January in an Indian fertility clinic about 4,000km from the couple's home in Tel Aviv, produced by doctors who have begun specializing in surrogacy services for couples from around the world.

"The child will know early on that he or she is unique, that it came into the world in a very special way," said Gher, 29, a communications officer for the environmental group Greenpeace.

An enterprise known as reproductive outsourcing is a new but rapidly expanding business in India. Clinics that provide surrogate mothers for foreigners say they have recently been inundated with requests from the US and Europe, as word spreads of India's mix of skilled medical professionals, relatively liberal laws and low prices.

Commercial surrogacy, which is banned in some states and some European countries, was legalized in India in 2002. The cost comes to about US$25,000, roughly a third of the typical price in the US. That includes the medical procedures; payment to the surrogate mother, which is often, but not always, done through the clinic; plus air tickets and hotels for two trips to India (one for the fertilization and a second to collect the baby).

"People are increasingly exposed to the idea of surrogacy in India; Oprah Winfrey talked about it on her show," said Kaushal Kadam at the Rotunda clinic in Mumbai.

Just an hour earlier she had created an embryo for Gher and his partner with sperm from one of them (they would not say which) and an egg removed from a donor just minutes before in another part of the clinic.

The clinic, known more formally as Rotunda -- The Center for Human Reproduction, does not permit contact between egg donor, surrogate mother or future parents. The donor and surrogate are always different women; doctors say surrogates are less likely to bond with the babies if there is no genetic connection.

There are no firm statistics on how many surrogacies are being arranged in India for foreigners, but anecdotal evidence suggests a sharp increase.

Rudy Rupak, co-founder and president of PlanetHospital, a medical tourism agency with headquarters in California, said he expected to send at least 100 couples to India this year for surrogacy, up from 25 last year, the first year he offered the service.

"Every time there is a success story, hundreds of inquiries follow," he said.

FREE OF VICE

In Anand, a city in the eastern state of Gujarat where the practice was pioneered in India, more than 50 surrogate mothers are pregnant with the children of couples from the US, Britain and elsewhere. Fifteen of them live together in a hostel attached to the clinic there.

Naina Patel, who runs the Anand clinic, said that even Americans who could afford to hire surrogates at home were coming to her for women "free of vices like alcohol, smoking and drugs." She said she gets about 10 e-mailed inquiries a day from couples abroad.

Under guidelines issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research, surrogate mothers sign away their rights to any children. A surrogate's name is not even on the birth certificate.

This eases the process of taking the baby out of the country. But for many, like Lisa Switzer, 40, a medical technician from San Antonio, Texas, whose twins are being carried by a surrogate mother from the Rotunda clinic, the overwhelming attraction is the price.

"Doctors, lawyers, accountants, they can afford it, but the rest of us -- the teachers, the nurses, the secretaries -- we can't. Unless we go to India," she said.

Surrogacy is an area fraught with ethical and legal uncertainties. Critics argue that the ease with which relatively rich foreigners are able to "rent" the wombs of poor Indians creates the potential for exploitation. Although the government is actively promoting India as a medical tourism destination, what some see as an exchange of money for babies has made many here uncomfortable.

India's Ministry of Women and Child Development said last month that it was weighing recommending legislation to govern surrogacy, but it is not imminent.

An article published in the Times of India in last month questioned how such a law would be enforced.

"In a country crippled by abject poverty, how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?" the paper asked.

Even some of those involved in the business of organizing surrogates want greater regulation.

"There must be protection for the surrogates," Rupak said. "Inevitably, people are going to smell the money and unscrupulous operators will get into the game. I don't trust the industry to police itself."

He said that the few doctors offering the service now were ethical and took good care of the surrogates but that he was concerned this might change as the business expanded.

Gher and his partner, who asked not to be named to preserve his privacy, have worked through their doubts and are certain they are doing a good thing.

"People can believe me when I say that if I could bear the baby myself I would," Gher said. "But this is a mutually beneficial answer. The surrogate gets a fair amount of money for being part of the process."

The couple is paying about US$30,000, of which the surrogate gets about US$7,500.

"Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop," Kadam said. "This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don't think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other."

Gher agreed.

"You cannot ignore the discrepancies between Indian poverty and Western wealth," he said. "We try our best not to abuse this power. Part of our choice to come here was the idea that there was an opportunity to help someone in India."

THUMBPRINT

In the Mumbai clinic, it is clear that an exchange between rich and poor is under way. On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients' signatures.

Although some Indian clinics allow surrogates and clients to meet, Gher said he preferred anonymity. When his surrogate gives birth later this year, he and his partner will be in the hospital, but not in the ward where she is in labor, and will be handed the baby by a nurse.

The surrogate mother does not know that she is working for foreigners, Kadam said, and has not been told that the future parents are both men. Gay sex is illegal in India.

Israel legalized adoption by same-sex couples last month, but such couples are not permitted to hire surrogates in Israel to become parents. A fertility doctor recommended Rotunda, which made news in November when its doctors delivered twins for another gay Israeli couple.

Rotunda did not allow interviews with its surrogate mothers, but a 32-year-old woman at a fertility clinic in New Delhi explained why she is planning on her second surrogacy in two years.

Separated from her husband, she found that her monthly wages of 2,800 rupees, about US$69, as a midwife were not enough to raise her nine-year-old son. With the money she earned from the first surrogacy, more than US$13,600, she bought a house. She expects to pay for her son's education with what she earns for the second, about US$8,600. (Fees are typically fixed by the doctor and can vary.)

"I will save the money for my child's future," she said.

The process requires some subterfuge in this socially conservative country. The woman has told her mother, who lives with her, but not her son or their neighbors. She has told the few who have asked her outright that she is bearing a child for a relative.

So far, for the Israeli couple, the experience of having a baby has been strangely virtual. They perused profiles of egg donors that were sent by e-mail ("We picked the one with the highest level of education," Gher said).

From information that followed, they rejected a factory worker in favor of a housewife, who they thought would have a less stressful lifestyle.

Gher posts updates about the process on Facebook. And soon the clinic will start sending ultrasound images of their developing child by e-mail. Highly pixilated, blown-up passport photos of the egg donor and surrogate mother adorn a wall of their apartment in Israel.

"We've been trying to half close our eyes and look at it in a more holistic way to imagine what she would actually look like," Gher said of the donor's blurred image. "These are women we don't know, will never know, who will become in a way part of our lives."

Ma's China Policy Lacks A Sense of Realpolitik

2008-03-12T19:12:00.000-07:00

By Liu Kuan-teh 劉冠德

Sunday's presidential debate rarely touched upon foreign policy. The main reason lies in the fact that China's diplomatic suppression and international isolation of Taipei is not contingent upon any "blue or green" policy.

During the debate, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continued to criticize what he called the Democratic Progressive Party's(DPP) "fire-setting diplomacy" and blamed it for Taiwan's loss of diplomatic allies under President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Ma also blamed the DPP's bids to use the name "Taiwan" to apply for memberships in the WHO and the UN for creating distrust between Taiwan and many allies, including the US.

Since China is behind Taiwan's diplomatic difficulties, Ma promised to start negotiating with China over international space.

For Ma to characterize the DPP government with what he called a "confrontational approach" to Beijing and to overlook the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the real threat to Taiwan's international recognition and security was not surprising.

What concerns most voters is Ma's theory of using the so-called "1992 consensus" as the starting point to resume talks with Beijing. There are inherent contradictions to Ma's approach.

Ma seems to assume that seeking an improvement in cross-strait relations will automatically make China give Taiwan more international space and better treatment. Therefore he argues that both Taiwan and China should stop talking about "mutual recognition" and focus on "no mutual denial."

Ma's idea is wishful thinking and fails to address the question of the different definitions of "one China" made by the KMT and Beijing.

Even though there is no such thing as the "1992 consensus," the KMT advocates the "Republic of China [ROC]" as "one China," while the Chinese Communist Party insists the "People's Republic of China" represents "one China" and that "Taiwan is a part of the PRC."

Beijing does not accept the "Republic of China" as "one China" and has been excluding the ROC's participation in almost every international arena under the KMT's rule.

The then-KMT government enacted the so-called National Unification Guidelines and established the National Unification Council in 1991. Both governments engaged in political dialogue in 1992 and 1993.

The political atmosphere between Taipei and Beijing should have been moderate. However, between 1992 and 1998, Taiwan severed diplomatic relations with South Korea, Saint Lucia, South Africa and the Central Africa Republic. The diplomatic warfare continued even though cross-strait relations seemed relaxed.

How can Ma insist that he is for maintaining Taiwan's sovereignty while engaging Beijing with "no mutual denial?"

The assumption that Beijing would give Taiwan more international respect and space if Taiwan improves cross-strait relations is not realistic.

The most inconvenient truth is: If Ma is elected, Beijing will still not allow Taiwan to have observer status during the World Health Assembly in May.

The newly-elected president of Taiwan will be rejected a transit stop in Washington en route to Taiwan's diplomatic allies in Central America.

Even with a new electoral mandate, Beijing will not accept Ma's attendance at the APEC leadership summit in October.

Unless of course Ma plans to wait until his counterparts accept the so-called "1992 consensus" and then starts to perform his duty as a democratically-elected president of Taiwan. In that case, why would the voters waste their ballots and chose such a coward?

Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.

China Wants to Manage US Policy

2008-03-12T19:10:00.000-07:00

By Sushil Seth

China's leadership has tended to largely follow Deng Xiaoping's (鄧小平) advice to "hide our capacities and bide our time." What it means is that Beijing should avoid confrontation with the West, principally the US, until it is in a position to prevail.

And its priority area to prevail is Taiwan. Since the US is committed to help Taiwan defend itself in the event of a Chinese attack, it would mean having to confront the US.

A virtual showdown in the Taiwan Strait in 1996, with two US warships cruising in that direction, had a sobering effect on China.

Since then Beijing has followed a mixture of strategies, including legislative annexation of Taiwan and declaring in essence that any declaration of independence in Taiwan would require China, under its domestic legislation, to take military action.

And to impress its seriousness, Beijing is building up a huge arsenal of missiles targeted at Taiwan by reportedly adding "more than 100 missiles a year to the 1,000 already aimed across the Taiwan Strait."

The context for this new evaluation of the Chinese threat is the Pentagon's annual report to the US Congress on China's military buildup, with another double-digit increase of about 18 percent in its military budget.

China's military spending, according to official figures, recorded an average annual rise of close to 15.8 percent between 2003 and last year.

The official figures, in any case, are a gross underestimation and the real annual defense spending is likely to have been double the official figure, or US$150 billion.

The People's Liberation Army is being transformed, according to the Pentagon evaluation, from a mass army "designed for protracted wars of attrition on its territory to one capable of fighting and winning short-duration wars along its periphery against high-tech adversaries."

And here Taiwan fits into the Chinese scheme of things, if Beijing were to consider a military option.

Even if the military option is not exercised, it nevertheless has to be pretty serious and credible to have the desired effect, as with the massing of hundreds of missiles aimed at Taiwan.

China would like to avoid military confrontation with the US over Taiwan or anywhere else, with the US being by far the strongest military power.

Hence it has a mix of other strategies. Within Taiwan, for instance, it has managed to create important political and business constituencies that favor accommodation with Beijing regarding Taiwan's political status.

These groups, like the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), do not necessarily want to abandon Taiwan's identity but might explore an arrangement to maintain autonomy within the "one China" principle.

Beijing has often maintained that it is prepared for talks within the "one China" formula. And if China, and a KMT government in Taipei, were to work out a formula that rules out a separate Taiwan, any US commitment to defend Taiwan might become redundant.

But it might not be all that simple because any working arrangement between Beijing and Taipei will have a long time frame. And a new government in Taiwan will not be all that keen to abjure US protection during a long transitional relationship between Beijing and Taipei.

At the same time, there is also the "little" matter of considering the popular opinion in Taiwan. The Taiwanese do not want confrontation with China.

But, at the same time, they don't seem keen to be absorbed into it. With Taiwan's vibrant democracy, any ruling political party rash enough to embed with China might not have long to rule.

While China might find living with a new KMT government (if voted into power) congenial, it cannot count on a smooth political trajectory. And the US commitment to defend Taiwan is likely to remain relevant.

Beijing is aware of this, and hence is continuing to build its military capability designed, in the short and medium term, to deter the US from taking on China.

In other words, the US might find the cost of confronting China prohibitive.

And here China's rapid buildup of its submarine fleet is quite instructive. In a recent report from Beijing, New York Times correspondent David Lague wrote: "American and other Western military analysts estimate that China now has more than 30 advanced and increasingly stealthy submarines, and dozens of older obsolete types."

They believe that "by the end of the decade ? China will have more submarines than the United States, although it will still lag behind in overall ability," Lague said.

Another way by which China seeks to manage the US is by creating political leverage on international issues that are important to Washington.

So much so that a view is gaining in some quarters in Washington that Beijing could be a useful partner in managing some of these issues.

This view is reflected in a recent Foreign Affairs article. Authors Stephanie Kleine-Ahlbrandt and Andrew Small wrote: "In just two years, China has moved from outright obstructionism and a defensive insistence on solidarity with the developing world to an attempt to balance its material needs with its acknowledged responsibilities as a major power."

"And so when Washington and its allies formulate their policies toward pariah states, they should assume that China, although in some respects an obstacle, is now also a critical partner," they wrote.

With the US looking to Beijing for support on international issues at a time when Washington is overstretched, Taiwan tends to become a side issue.

The problem, though, is any sign of appeasement on Taiwan would be read by China as the US' faltering resolve to keep actively engaged in the Asia-Pacific.

Some of the regional countries are already factoring this into their policy formulations by seeking political accommodation with China as the pre-eminent regional power.

Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.

Making "Referendum" A Dirty Word

2008-03-12T19:07:00.000-07:00

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Po-hsiung's (吳伯雄) announcement yesterday that his party would boycott the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) referendum on UN entry using the name "Taiwan" and back the KMT's own on "returning to the UN" would appear to be the final nail in the coffin of the DPP's plebiscite.

Taking into account that previous KMT boycotts have ensured the failure of all four referendums staged since the Referendum Law was promulgated in November 2003, it signals that the DPP version now has very little chance of passing.

Passage of the KMT's referendum, however, also remains uncertain. Despite Wu's support of the party's plebiscite, several party legislators have already gone public with their intention to boycott both referendums.

The KMT is obviously split along its China-Taiwan divide on the issue and the party's spat can only add to the public's sense of confusion, which has resulted in the term "referendum" almost becoming a dirty word among Taiwanese.

The KMT must take the lion's share of the blame for this phenomenon because from day one they have treated the issue of referendums -- with the initiation of "smokescreen" rival plebiscites and irrational arguments about extra ballots "confusing" voters -- with disdain.

The KMT had no qualms about dumping the sham "corruption" referendum it proposed during January's legislative elections, but there was no practical way that it could have done the same this time around, as a boycott of its UN referendum would have put presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in an extremely difficult position.

Ma's "flexible diplomacy" platform is more or less identical to the KMT's referendum question and he had publicly backed the plebiscite on more than one occasion, while Siew was the referendum's initiator.

But the KMT does not deserve all the blame, as the DPP, having waited too long for referendums to become a reality, is equally guilty of damaging what it terms "the sanctity" of the plebiscite.

As polls have repeatedly shown throughout the years, the majority of people in Taiwan are happy with the current state of affairs in cross-strait relations and they do not want to vote on issues that are likely to anger China.

The DPP, however, with its provocative choices for referendum topics, ignored this fact, as well as the concerns of the nation's main security guarantor -- the US -- in the hope of deepening Taiwan consciousness while rallying partisan support on election day.

The DPP would have done better to hold polls on less controversial issues to help the concept of the plebiscite become ingrained in the minds of the electorate, as this would eventually lead to a situation where no political party -- no matter how big its legislative majority -- would be able to make decisions concerning issues of national importance without first putting it to the people.

As it stands now, a huge chunk of the population have been turned off by the idea of referendums, despite the fact that the issue at stake on this occasion is of extreme importance to the nation's future.

Let's hope that a week from Saturday these people can overcome their apathy and come out in support of the referendums, as at least this would send a message, however muddled, to the world that despite all Taiwan's problems, its people are at least united on one issue.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 13, 2008.

How to Give Up A Green Card

2008-03-11T17:29:00.000-07:00

Alfred Tsai of Taipei

The statements from both sides on whether Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is a permanent US resident have been confusing, so I went to the library to look up the issue in a legal encyclopedia. I found an informative article in American Law Reports (193 A.L.R. Fed. 673). Below are two relevant paragraphs: "If an alien has been abroad for a lengthy period of time, however, his commitment to permanently residing in the US is called into question."

"Abandonment of permanent resident status is generally found when there has been a lengthy absence from the US. Whether an alien has abandoned his status is a matter of subjective intention proven by objective facts, the ultimate issue being whether there is a continuing intent to return. Whether there was an intention to maintain permanent-resident status is not the issue, but rather whether there was a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return to the US."

A "temporary visit abroad" is generally defined as a situation in which either the permanent resident's visit is for a "period relatively short, fixed by some early event" or the permanent resident's visit will terminate upon the occurrence of an event having a reasonable possibility of occurring within a relatively short period of time.

A "temporary visit," however, cannot be defined in terms of elapsed time alone.

The alien's intention, when it can be determined, is a controlling factor. Some of the factors a court can use in determining whether an alien harbored a continuous, uninterrupted intention to return are: his family ties, property holdings and business affiliations within the US; the duration of residence in the US; family, property and business ties in the foreign country and whether the alien's conduct while abroad showed that he intended to remain in the foreign country.

The law seems to favor Ma, but he seems quite evasive and his explanation is not of the quality one would expect from a Harvard law graduate. What does he have to hide?

US Report Shows PLA Could Not Take Taiwan

2008-03-11T17:28:00.001-07:00

By Cheng Ta-chen 鄭大誠, translated by Anna Stiggelbout

On March 3, the US Department of Defense published its annual report Military Power of the People's Republic of China. Apart from a few figures that have changed, the content of the report is largely the same as previous editions.

Chapter Six, which is of the most interest to Taiwan, describes possible courses of action that China's military might take against Taiwan. The possible contingencies are the same as in last year's report: China could move against Taiwan with limited force, in an air and missile campaign, with quarantines and blockades or through an amphibious invasion.

Like last year's report, it says that using limited force and carrying out an air and missile campaign might affect Taiwan's defensive systems and the willingness of the Taiwanese to fight, but when analyzed more closely, these two actions are only a part of, or perhaps a prelude to, a Chinese attack against Taiwan.

If there were no successful follow-up to these military actions, the People's Liberation Army (PLA) wouldn't be able to attain its goal of "reunification" or "liberating Taiwan."

But the authors of this year's report clearly are of the opinion that China's military capability to carry out either of those courses of action has not improved significantly in the past year and has possibly even weakened.

The authors of the report believe that using a blockade or quarantine against Taiwan would be very taxing on the PLA's capabilities.

Also, China is clearly underestimating the international pressure and the possibility of military escalation that could result from a blockade of the Taiwan Strait.

As in previous years, the US Department of Defense is of the opinion that if China chose to launch an amphibious invasion against Taiwan, its main strategy would still be the "Joint Island Landing Campaign." But the report also says an amphibious invasion is still too complicated for the PLA to carry out.

Last year's report was still only hinting that an amphibious invasion would constitute too big of a risk for the Chinese leaders in Zhongnanhai, both politically and militarily, and so China might lack the capability to successfully launch an attack on Taiwan.

This year's report clearly states that if China were to invade Taiwan's outlying islands, this would show its military capability and political resolve, but it could also turn the Taiwanese public against China.

Moreover, this year's report boldly states that it would be beyond the routine training of the PLA to take over an outlying island like Kinmen or Matsu, let alone invade Taiwan itself. Taiwan would only need to implement some "modest target investments" in defense facilities and equipment to be able to deter a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

In the past years, the US army has paid close attention to the actions the PLA is taking in regard to its anti-access forces, which would be used to deter the US army from coming to Taiwan's aid in the case of an invasion.

Some analysts think that by around 2010, China may have sufficient power to launch an anti-access war. But according to this most recent report of the US Department of Defense on China's military power, an anti-access force that could stop the US army from coming to Taiwan's rescue is one thing, but actually invading Taiwan and succeeding in taking over the country is something else entirely.

Cheng Ta-chen is an independent defense analyst.

2008-03-11T17:28:00.000-07:00

Taiwan Must Review Security Risks

2008-03-11T17:26:00.000-07:00

The recent US Department of Defense report on PRC military modernization is a useful reminder of the challenges posed by China's rise as a major regional power. This year's report is the most detailed and insightful to date and a number of issues are worthy of consideration for Taiwan.

First, the exclusive focus on the dangers of China's military modernization risks diverting attention away from other important security challenges that Taiwan faces.

Most noteworthy is economic security. Given the risks inherent in overreliance on China for sustained economic growth and prosperity, much more could be done to integrate the economy of Taiwan with those of the US, Japan and other Asian countries.

For example, Taiwan could be encouraged to leverage its competitive advantages in information technology and participate in the globalization of the US defense industry through a bilateral defense procurement memorandum of understanding.

Natural disasters, epidemics and terrorism and other extremism, just to name a few, also pose significant challenges to Taiwan's security. While the military challenges are serious, these non-traditional threats may be more imminent and possibly just as lethal to life and prosperity.

Secondly, as China's military becomes more skilled and innovative, defenses become increasingly important. While assessing a stronger Chinese military, the most important considerations are worst-case scenarios and what the responses to those cases would be.

Here are a few ideas that could serve as starting points for further debate.

To begin with, should Taiwan assume US intervention as the basis for strategic and operational planning?

While there is good reason to hope and plan for potential ad hoc coalition operations with intervening US forces, the Taiwan Relations Act is no substitute for a mutual defense treaty.

With this in mind, and in the absence of a formal alliance commitment, prudence seems to suggest that independent defense should serve as a formal planning assumption. Hope for the best, yet plan for the worst.

Another important question: What is the best way to ensure that the perceived and real costs to the individuals in Beijing making an ill-advised decision to use military force outweigh any perceived benefit?

Put another way, and with independent defense as a guiding principle, how could one ensure that a future Chinese leadership understands that it would be unsuccessful in any attempt to forcibly oust a democratically elected leadership, physically occupy an entire island and rule through proxies at the central and local levels?

An amphibious invasion is the least likely yet most dangerous scenario.

Chinese decision makers could resort to coercive uses of force, short of a full scale invasion, in order to achieve limited political objectives. However, the outcome of coercive campaigns can not be predicted with any degree of certainty.

While gradual annexation through peaceful means may be preferable, annihilation and occupation could one day be perceived as the only means to victory.

As time goes on, China's ability to physically occupy Taiwan and force a regime change may become easier. And if it is easier, such a course of action could become more tempting.

But victory could still be elusive, regardless of how strong China's military is. History is replete with examples of militarily superior powers losing to weaker ones.

One question worth asking is why. What strategies led to the Davids of the world overcoming the Goliaths and how can they be applied to Taiwan's defense?

In light of China's one-child policy, parents may not be as willing as they used to be to sacrifice their sons for peripheral interests.

Taking Switzerland's defense strategy as an example, the ultimate solution to ensuring national will -- the center of gravity in any future cross-strait conflict -- may lie in being confident that China would never be able to take and hold the island.

In light of China's growing military power, there are a range of other questions that could be asked.

For example, how could Taiwan best ensure that its people, including those responsible for defending the island, would be able to maintain situational awareness and communicate with others on the island and with those abroad in the face of a dedicated campaign to shut down sensors and means of communication?

Perhaps no other issue is worthy of more attention. Just as a human's cognitive and central nervous system is critical for sensing and responding to threats, the ability to know what's going on and communicate is fundamental.

Yet this ability is often taken for granted until it is lost.

Second, how can the People's Liberation Army (PLA) be denied unimpeded control of the skies over Taiwan and adjacent waters? While it may be difficult to sustain operations indefinitely, air and air/missile defense assets may be critical in resolving a conflict in its early stages.

In a protracted resistance, it may be within Taiwan's ability to hold PLA pilots at bay for an extended period of time. Elements in China controlling offensive air and missile operations against Taiwan, if they could be found, may also be targeted.

Retaining the ability to strike such targets in China is necessary for sufficient self-defense, and US release of systems capable of this mission would be consistent with the spirit and letter of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Third, how can sea lines of communication linking key harbors with international waters be maintained? Given the PLA's growing maritime power, including submarines and advanced mines, such a task appears daunting.

In addition to survivable command, control and communications, there is no substitute for advanced diesel electric submarines as part of an integrated anti-submarine warfare architecture.

As this much-needed naval capability is developed and deployed, consideration also could be given to fielding a large fleet of small, multi-purpose civilian submersibles for commercial, scientific and surveillance purposes.

Finally, the growing PRC military threat suggests that further adjustments may be necessary to the US-Taiwan defense relationship, in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act.

Abrogation of the US-Republic of China Mutual Defense Treaty and withdrawal of the US military presence on the island were premised upon China's commitment to a peaceful approach to resolving differences with Taiwan.

The most visible demonstration of a peaceful commitment is its force posture. Therefore, as the threat to the people of Taiwan and their democratically elected leadership grows, so should the depth and breadth of US defense and security relations with Taiwan. A congressionally mandated policy review group should assess and recommend a range of new initiatives that could further assist Taiwan in its self-defense and enhance the ability of the US military, should it be called upon to do so, to operate with Taiwan's defense establishment as ad hoc coalition partners.

In addition, if Taiwan's formal requests for defense articles and services are not being given proper attention, resurrecting the annual Arms Sales Talks may be justified.

Finally, in order to remain aware of other important security needs, and in accordance with the Taiwan Relations Act, congressionally mandated reporting on Taiwan's economic security is worth considering.

Mark Stokes is a former senior director for China, Mongolia and Taiwan at the US Department of Defense. He is currently the executive director of The Project 2049 Institute and a member of the Taiwan Policy Working Group.

Would the Leader Please Stand Up?

2008-03-11T17:24:00.000-07:00

One of the greatest challenges of democracy is giving voice to those sections of society that are most disadvantaged. A successful democratic mechanism must strive to combat marginalization and provide every citizen and social group with the tools to protect their rights and interests.

For this reason, scrutinizing society's treatment of its most marginalized members is an excellent method of gauging progress in democratization.

In this context, the eviction of low-income Aboriginal groups from choice property is hardly a compliment to the system. The Sijhou community of Sindian (新店), Taipei County, is just one example. Sijhou residents are being forced from their homes and there is little they can do about it. Although their homes lie on a designated flood zone, the land will soon be rezoned as safe for development thanks to the construction of a retention wall. But by the time the land is designated as safe, Sijhou's residents will have lost their fight.

Likewise, the government's treatment of another marginalized group of society, sex workers, reveals the chauvinism still ingrained in the system. Under Article 80 of the Social Order and Maintenance Act (社會秩序維護法), it is illegal to sell sex services, but not illegal to pay for them.

Prostitutes themselves say the criminalization of sex work has left them in the hands of organized crime and robbed them of legal recourse against physical abuse and of the option of turning down customers who refuse to wear a condom. The measure increased their hardship without empowering them with the tools to pursue a different livelihood.

That is the message that hundreds of sex workers and supporters took to the streets on Saturday in Taipei in a call to the presidential candidates.

Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) responded by signing an agreement to decriminalize prostitution within two years of being elected, an act the protesters welcomed and hoped was not an election ploy.

His Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rival, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), responded by declining to take a stance without first gauging public opinion. As president, Ma said, he would let public consensus steer the matter.

This was also Ma's response to a question on legalizing gay marriage in last month's debate, when he dodged taking a position for or against gay unions by saying public consensus must decide.

Ma seems to have missed the second challenge of democracy. A government mechanism that seeks to promote a society based on the ideals of equality and human rights has a responsibility to push for the interests of all sections of society -- even when this contradicts public opinion. This is the case both here and abroad, in fledgling and mature democracies.

If Ma believes in promoting the values of human rights and democracy, he must be willing to take a stand on issues that involve combating marginalization and intolerance. In Sweden, selling sex services is not punishable, but purchasing them is. This is based on the view that threatening sex workers with prison does little more than further marginalize a struggling section of society.

The next president should be prepared to push for measures to put an end to trafficking, gangster control of brothels, physical abuse of prostitutes, violation of their labor rights and the underlying issues of poverty, drug abuse and social inequality that have repeatedly been linked to prostitution.

A presidential candidate who believes that promoting social progress entails nothing more than gauging public opinion is not fit to take on the burdens of leadership.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 12, 2008.

How Would Democracy in China Play Out?

2008-03-10T18:31:00.000-07:00

By Wang Dan 王丹, translated by Ted Yang

China might be under CCP control today, but that does not mean that the party necessarily represents the future of the country.

The results of the presidential election will have a significant impact on the development of cross-state relations. But regardless of whether Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) or his Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) counterpart Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) wins the election, both candidates should pay attention to the effect on Chinese democratization and cross-strait relations.

The next 10 years will be a critical period in China's development. A couple factors are especially important.

First, as nationalism continues to ferment, the authorities will engage in the careful manipulation of public opinion.

Second, the strength of China, and especially its military, will continue to grow.

If it keeps growing at the current speed, the risk that China will attack Taiwan will increase.

However, a factor that cannot be determined is the nature of the change of the Chinese state over the next 10 years.

Even if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) insists on highly centralized rule, modern governments will make such rule more difficult, weakening state control of society.

Thus it is important to note to what degree civil society in China will influence the Chinese government in the next 10 years.

The question of whether or not China will democratize is key for cross-strait relations.

It therefore is logical for Chinese democratization to be at the center of Taiwan's policy on China.

This focus provides a long term view of the situation and is in the best interests of the nation.

First, pushing for Chinese democracy helps improve Taiwan's international image.

Taiwan is inferior to China economically, militarily and diplomatically.

Taiwan is only superior to China in its form of government. By upholding democracy, Taiwan can manifest its unique value and gain support and sympathy from the international community -- a strategic advantage over China.

Second, the US would also support a push for Chinese democracy. Since US President George W. Bush took office, and especially during US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's term, the US has put a heavy emphasis on promoting democracy all over the world. If Taiwan actively promotes the democratization of China, there will only be praise from the US.

Finally, a push for democracy in China could also gain the support of the Chinese people.

China might be under CCP control today, but that does not mean that the party necessarily represents the future of the country.

Visionary politicians should focus on the budding civil society in China. If Taiwan can offer support for China's democratization, it might win over public opinion there.

No matter where Taiwan is headed, it is vital that it wins the goodwill of the Chinese people.

Wang Dan is a member of the Chinese democracy movement.

After Steven Spielberg, Ang Lee?

2008-03-10T18:29:00.000-07:00

Following months of pressure from rights advocates and high-profile celebrities, film director Steven Spielberg last month opted out of his role as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics, a move that was praised by many -- except those in Beijing.

As a filmmaker with a conscience who gave us, among others, Schindler's List and Munich (the Olympic link couldn't be more obvious), Spielberg's association with a government that has no compunction in supporting the genocidal regime in Sudan was also proving too damaging to his image.

But while Spielberg has been the focus of all the bad publicity, other advisers to the Games have managed to avoid pressure -- and one of them is Taiwan's Ang Lee (李安).

Lee's reasons to reconsider his role as an arts and culture consultant for the Games (under Chinese director Zhang Yimou [張藝謀]) are perhaps more numerous than Spielberg's. While the Hollywood director pulled out over the crisis in Sudan alone, Lee is a son of Taiwan, a land that every day is threatened by Chinese predation and whose existence as a democracy Beijing holds in contempt.

Beijing's agenda hit closer to home over the weekend when the government announced that Chinese actress Tang Wei (湯唯) had been blacklisted because of her role in Lee's award-winning Lust, Caution, which Beijing said "beautified" the Japanese occupation of China during World War II. (Ironically, Hong Kong-born Tony Leung Chiu-wai [梁朝偉], who plays a Japanese collaborator in the movie, has so far been spared Beijing's tar and feathers.)

In and of itself, this should be sufficient to dispel any illusion that art and politics do not mix, for in Beijing's world, politics -- World War II, Sino-Japanese relations -- are being used to destroy an artist's livelihood.

While artists may seek to transcend political differences, they should never lose sight of the fact that they, too, have responsibilities and that art, even in its "purest" form, cannot be apolitical. As role models, artists of Lee's caliber are in a far better position to fire imaginations -- and ultimately influence views -- than most politicians. Consequently, by choosing to work with Beijing or by remaining silent in the face of injustice, Lee could be seen to be rationalizing Chinese repression.

As George Orwell observed: The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.

And now, should he remain silent on Beijing's attack on one of its own, Lee would send a signal that it is acceptable for a government to use politics to violate freedom of expression and dictate what artists can and cannot address in their work.

In fact, by accepting Beijing's invitation to serve as an adviser to the Games, Lee was telling the world that it was negotiable for China to ban his previous movie, Brokeback Mountain.

If genocide in Sudan, the jailing of Chinese dissidents, the suppression of Taiwan and molestation of Tibet are not enough to change Lee's mind, then perhaps this latest overt attack against one of his creations and one of his stars will be the last straw.

Lee now has no choice but to put aside the "softly, softly" approach, stand by Tang's side and follow in Spielberg's footsteps.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 11, 2008.

KMT's Economic Ideas Lack Vision

2008-03-09T19:20:00.000-07:00

By Lin Cho-shui 林濁水, translated by Eddy Chang

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) looks over its decades of governing and the so-called "Taiwan miracle" -- the transformation into a strong economy and democracy -- and pats itself on the back.

It has an elitist attitude and deceives itself into believing Taiwan's success story was somehow all the result of its wisdom and foresight.

Based on that view, it has not changed its belief that such a regime is justified. It gives orders from the top and proposes projects with grandiose titles: the Asia-Pacific Regional Operations Center (APROC), an airline hub connecting Northeast and Southeast Asia; the dual purpose operations center for domestic and foreign enterprises; the "cross-strait common market," the global value-added services center; and the global innovation center.

The KMT has dominated the discussion of such issues. But ironically, in spite of a constant string of proposals and impressive project titles, its economic strategy boils down to one principle: complete reliance upon the US and China.

In the years before the KMT lost the presidential office, its economic policies focused on two areas: the development of the electronic information industry with a focus on manufacturing and the APROC.

The latter was a policy proposed by KMT vice presidential candidate Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) in 1995.

To bolster the electronics and information technology sectors, the KMT allowed the manufacturing industry to move operations abroad to gain cheaper access to land, capital and laborers. But the industry focused entirely on original equipment manufacturing of hardware, while the innovative integrated-circuit and software sectors, which focused on research and development, were grossly underestimated.

Companies working in these sectors had difficulty listing themselves on the stock market and gaining access to Hsinchu Science Park and were usually excluded from tax incentives.

The government's priorities back then resulted in an economic reliance on technology from upstream companies and orders from downstream companies. There was no effort to promote independent technologies or brands.

As for Siew's APROC, which was copied from Hong Kong, the KMT tried to used Taiwan's location to build a "greater China" economic zone.

KMT Vice Chairman Chiang Pin-kun (江丙坤) even suggested to the party's 2004 presidential candidate, former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), that the government allow the entire manufacturing industry to move abroad.

The "greater China" approach was based on the erroneous judgment that the nation had gone from reliance on the US economy to reliance on the Chinese economy. To compete in the Chinese market, the argument went, Taiwan's manufacturing industry must have access to the same cheap Chinese laborers; the service industry must ape Hong Kong and focus on China; and Taiwan must serve as a door for China's imports and exports.

This is the approach that the KMT is promoting even today.

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a different vision for continued economic transformation. That vision is based on creating technology.

From building up brands to developing the service and cultural sectors, the nation's economy must seek its future in innovation. The key is research and development. Industries will gradually gain in independence by innovating and marketing their developments.

The economic policies offered by the DPP and KMT reflect the difference between independence and dependence. They represent two completely different economic maps for the growth of the nation's industries. They are the difference between looking over the horizon to create a global center for logistics and innovation or limiting Taiwan to a "greater China" economic zone.

Hong Kong is an excellent example. It is a door to the Chinese market and some have called it the hub of East Asia. But Hong Kong's success remains limited to taking advantage of its location. It has capitalized on its position to become what it is today, but failed to innovate and grow in other directions. Siew's vision is exactly this: Taiwan, another Asia-Pacific center.

There is no doubt that Siew is right in one aspect. The nation would be foolish not to take advantage of geography to grow. But Taiwan is more than the "city economy" that is Hong Kong. Taiwan has long had global ambitions. Instead of vying to compete within the region, the nation's economy needs to aim for competing globally. Our ambitions should be much higher than simply hoping China and other countries continue to transit their goods through here.

Taiwan and Hong Kong have taken different paths for centuries and should not start mirroring each other now. The pan-blue camp keeps warning against policies it labels as "isolationism," but its strategy would undermine the nation's strides as a global player and turn it into a regional player.

Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.

No Time to Dally Over Options For

2008-03-09T19:13:00.000-07:00

By Margot Chen 陳麗菊, translated by Angela Hong

The referendums on applying for UN membership face a difficult fate. If neither referendum passes, they will naturally become a tool for Beijing in its mission to undermine Taiwan's independence. Knowing this, it's not surprising that the fate of these two referendums are on the minds of many people.

There are several courses of action that should be considered.

First, the referendums could be moved from the election date and the voter threshold for valid results lowered. Separating the plebiscites from the election would only be significant if the threshold were simultaneously changed. Otherwise the referendums would still fail to pass, rendering the effort to move them from March 22 pointless.

If the referendums were to be moved and the threshold lowered, what would be an appropriate date for them? The Referendum Act (公民投票法) stipulates that the Central Election Commission should hold referendums within one to six months after a referendum proposal has passed the application procedure.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) referendums on applying for UN membership were both formally announced on Feb. 1, which means the referendums must be held before the end of July at the latest. Since the Beijing Olympics are in August, holding the polls sooner rather than later might help avoid fueling tension with China.

Another scenario would be for the referendums and the election to be held in tandem, but with a lower voter threshold. That would increase the chances of the plebiscites passing.

However, the pan-blue camp would oppose such an idea, since it proposed its mirror referendum with the goal of preventing the DPP poll from passing. The KMT rationale was essentially that the pan-green camp would use its referendum to garner votes in the presidential election. To combat this, it proposed its own version.

But now it seems clear that the DPP has not made any electoral strides by touting its plebiscite. Nevertheless, the pan-blue camp will still do what it can to stop the DPP poll from passing to ensure that a poll using the name "Taiwan" doesn't succeed.

The two plebiscites are not just about representation at the UN. The choice of the word "joining" in the DPP version and "rejoining" in the KMT version represents different positions on the core issue of national identity and radically different political ideologies.

As a final scenario, the nation could consider going through with the referendums as planned. No date changes and no changes to the voter threshold. Instead, the legislature could pass a resolution as a sort of "airbag" to minimize the damage caused by the failure of the two referendums.

If the referendums take place on March 22 and the threshold has not been lowered, it seems both will fail, much to the delight of Beijing and to the relief of Washington and Tokyo, as it would rid them of concern over one source of tension between China and Taiwan.

If this happens, a legislative solution could at least offer a patch-up, but the content of the resolution would be extremely important.

Unfortunately, the KMT has no sincere desire to negotiate with the DPP. Once again their behavior is indicative of their approach to politics: pursue party interests over national interests.

The drama surrounding the referendums and election has turned into a tragedy in which a matter of utmost importance has become nothing more than a political tool. That reality is a far cry from the point of the referendum mechanism, which is to give the public a voice.

Margot Chen is a research fellow at Taiwan Advocates, a think tank initiated by former president Lee Teng-hui.

U.S. Congressman targets Olympics

2008-03-06T21:37:00.001-08:00

Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA-10th District) does not want U.S. President Bush to attend this year's Beijing "Genocide" Olympics, nor for other US government officials to attend by using federal money.

read more | digg story

Just Where Does Ma Draw the Line?

2008-03-06T21:17:00.000-08:00

By Yao Jen-to 姚人多, translated by Ted Yang

Recently some pan-green academics and social activists organized a forum to challenge Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) with a wide array of questions on national identity, transitional justice, how Hsieh would distinguish himself from President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and the tax system. Hsieh was required to come clean on all these questions.

Would Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) participate in the same kind of forum? Would pan-blue intellectuals challenge Ma by following the same strict standards? Judging from the KMT's conservative and feudal history and its current campaign strategies, the possibility is probably very low. However, we feel this is a danger to Taiwan's democratic elections. For a long time, voters have voted for a candidate without knowing much about him or her. Should we allow this phenomenon to continue?

As a presidential candidate at this crucial juncture in Taiwan's history, Ma should accept a challenge in the same way as Hsieh did and clearly answer the following questions.

First, clear the air on the green card issue. A green card is a document that grants lawful permanent residency in the US, a prerequisite to immigrating to that country. That he applied for and received a green card indicates that Ma attempted to immigrate to the US in the 1970s when Taiwan was in a difficult situation.

This may not be a big issue for the general public, but as a possible national leader, we need to know what Ma was thinking at the time. Why did he consider leaving Taiwan? Is Taiwan no good?

Second, after losing power, all authoritarian parties have had to undergo a thorough reform process before regaining power. Ma should tell us how the KMT has changed during its eight years in opposition and what he did during his term as party chairman.

Why were the "black gold exclusion clauses" changed to allow him to run for the presidency? Why has he supported local factions with bad records during so many elections? If he was incapable of reforming the KMT, how could people trust him in managing the transformation of the entire nation?

Third, Ma lacks any outstanding achievement since he entered politics. This is ample evidence that he lacks administrative and executive capabilities. This lack of ability is worrying and causes people to lose faith in him.

The KMT is a 100-year-old party with extremely complex internal interests and conflicts, so how could Ma be sure that he would be running the country? Does he know what has happened to the party's ill-gotten assets or the ins and outs of the party's sale of its media companies -- the China Television Co, the Broadcasting Corp of China and the Central Motion Picture Corp? Can he be sure that he is not just a puppet of some more powerful force?

Fourth, over the past eight years the KMT has accused the DPP of cooperating with business conglomerates, but the KMT's relations with these conglomerates doesn't seem more virtuous.

For example, when Taipei Bank and Fubon Financial Holding Co merged when Ma was Taipei mayor, he illegally dismissed the Taipei Bank labor union chairman who was opposed to the deal. This clearly tells us that Ma will choose powerful business conglomerates over disadvantaged workers.

Worse yet, the draft amendment to the Labor Union Law (工會法) was sent to the legislature for a review during the last legislative session, it was blocked by the KMT. Could Ma explain why? When conflicts of interest arise between workers and business conglomerates, which side would Ma take?

Fifth, Ma has said he is Taiwanese to the death. Despite this, he has repeatedly promoted unification. Isn't there a contradiction in there somewhere? Is the word "Taiwanese" a regional or a national identification to him?

Could it be that his current claim to be a Taiwanese is aimed at eventually achieving his goal of becoming Chinese?

Some may argue that the forum to challenge Hsieh was simply an election ploy, but I am not going to dignify that with a refutation. I only hope Ma could also employ such "election ploys" and resolve these question marks hanging over him.

Yao Jen-to is an assistant professor in the Graduate Institute of Sociology at National Tsing Hua University.

Missed Opportunities for Ma, Voters

2008-03-06T21:15:00.000-08:00

That the Chinese-language China Times recently printed a story containing rumors and unsubstantiated claims presented as fact should come as no surprise to people familiar with Taiwan's media.

But the latest example, on Feb. 22, when it quoted "unnamed aides" of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) accusing a foreign media organization of the kind of unethical behavior more commonly associated with the local press -- in this case colluding with the Government Information Office to give Ma a hard time ahead of the presidential election -- is noteworthy for two reasons.

First, it resulted in Euro News correspondent Sergio Cantone canceling his trip, losing Taiwan the chance for some valuable news exposure in 27 European countries. Second, it helped Ma avoid something that has been conspicuously absent in the buildup to the election -- an independent examination of his policies.

The fact that the interview would only have been broadcast in Europe and that few people here would have paid any attention to it did not seem to bother the Ma camp as it sought to protect their man from genuine scrutiny. But it needn't have worried, because there is already evidence that Ma doesn't hold up well when the questioning gets tough.

Who can forget Ma's famous lapse during his appearance on the BBC's Hardtalk program in February 2006? When driven into a corner by host Stephen Sackur about his belief in "one China" and unification, Ma resorted to patronizing language, accusing his inquisitor of not being "familiar with Chinese and Taiwanese affairs."

Or, on a visit to the Brookings Institution in March 2006, when the then KMT chairman was asked what he intended to do about bridging the political divide in Taiwan and bringing about political reconciliation, Ma -- presumably taken off guard -- proceeded to deliver an unrelated discourse on Taiwan's relations with APEC, much to the bemusement of the 150 or so high-profile guests in attendance.

But Ma is equally fallible when speaking at home, as his wishy-washy, incomplete responses to the promptings of Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) rival Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) on a number of personal issues over the last few weeks have demonstrated.

This weakness may have also been behind Ma's decision to dodge Hsieh's numerous invitations to hold a real debate, which, contrary to Central Election Commission-organized talking shops, would have given the candidates the opportunity to really question each other and explore one another's presidential platforms.

It is easy to appear competent when one is given an easy ride. But being president of a country -- especially one in such a precarious position as Taiwan -- is not an easy job. It requires a decisive person, capable of making tough decisions.

Ma, who had a privileged upbringing, has never endured real hardship or had to fight for anything in his life, save perhaps the chairmanship of the KMT.

So how do voters know he has got what it takes to defend the nation's sovereignty from the very real internal and external threats it faces if he is elected president? The simple answer is that on the present evidence they don't, and after March 22 it will be too late.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 7, 2008.

House Gives Taiwan Full Backing

2008-03-06T21:09:00.000-08:00

By Charles Snyder, staff reporter in Washington, D.C.

OUTSHINING THE TORCH: One clause criticizing China's oppression of Taiwan was removed from the final wording of a resolution, sparking heated debate on the floor

The US House of Representatives on Tuesday gave landslide approval to a resolution praising Taiwan's democracy and upcoming presidential election, urging the countries of the world to send delegations to Taiwan to witness the election.

By a 490-1 vote, the House endorsed the resolution that was approved by the House Foreign Affairs Committee late last month in the committee's first legislative vote this year.

The only vote against the proposal came from Ron Paul, a libertarian who until recently was a candidate for the Republican nomination for US president.

Five House members rose to speak in favor of the resolution, including two co-chairpersons of the Congressional Taiwan Caucus, Steve Chabot and Shelley Berkley.

"This resolution sends the right message at the right time," Chabot said. "As one of a very few democracies in Asia, Taiwan should be recognized for its courage and commitment to allow its citizens to choose its future."

He contrasted Taiwan with undemocratic China, citing Beijing's "abysmal human rights record, flouting of the rule of law, religious persecution and warehous[ing of] political prisoners."

Howard Berman, the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, said while introducing the resolution on the floor that "Taiwan's political system has evolved into one of the strongest democratic systems in Asia," following the demise of martial law and one-party "authoritarian dictatorship that failed to respect basic human rights."

"Today, Taiwan is a flourishing, multiparty democracy that respects human rights, upholds the rule of law and holds competitive elec-tions," he said.

"The United States' relationship with Taiwan speaks to the great importance of democracy in our foreign policy ... it is Taiwan's development of democracy that underpins the strong US-Taiwan friendship that we enjoy today," he said.

Michael Bilirakis, speaking for the opposition Republicans, called Taiwan "a shining example for other Asian states struggling with the introduction of representative forms of government and the rule of law. Taiwan's free elections, however, have the greatest impact on those who are still yearning to breathe free in the vast Chinese mainland."

He called Taiwan's democracy a "beacon of hope for those still suffering under the oppression on the communist Chinese mainland."

"Taiwan's democracy is a torch which shines ever brighter, far outshining the Olympic torch of the Chinese regime, which hopes this year to use sports to achieve propaganda victory," he said.

A dispute broke out during the deliberation on the Foreign Affairs Committee's decision to remove from the original resolution a clause that asserts that Taiwan "faces threat and intimidation from neighboring China."

That clause was deleted at the insistence of the chairman of the committee's Asia and Pacific subcommittee, delegate Eni Faleo-mavega of American Samoa.

Chabot bemoaned the committee's action, saying: "I'm disappointed that the strong language contained in the introduced version of the bill, which referenced the acts of intimidation and pressure by China, was eliminated. It is unrealistic to believe that these elections are not of concern to China."

Bilirakis agreed.

"Taiwan's young democracy faces constant military threat and intimidation from neighboring China," he said, echoing the deleted clause's language.

"Yet, in spite of these belligerent threats and the constant saber-rattling by Beijing, Taipei has continued to stand tall for freedom," he said.

Faleomavega, who has often taken a pro-Beijing stance in committee matters, defended his action.

Noting his two trips to Taipei over the past year, he said: "I can assure my colleagues that elections are in full swing in Taiwan, with no intimidation from the People's Republic of China."

"I think it is important for [congressional] members to observe first-hand the [Taiwanese electoral] process and meet the leaders in Taiwan and Beijing before being so quick in condemning the People's Republic of China," he said.

He said the resolution did not address the issue of the referendum on UN membership, adding: "I do not believe it would be in the best interest of our country to support the position of Taiwan's current administration, which has attempted to push for independence, which is contrary to the US position on one-country-two-systems [sic]."

It should be 409-1, with 1 Present and 17 NV (Not Voting). The bill/resolution is:

H CON RES 278 2/3 YEA-AND-NAY 5-Mar-2008 12:18 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended
BILL TITLE: Supporting Taiwan’s fourth direct and democratic presidential elections in March 2008

The URL for the bill/resolution is http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll092.xml

Green Cards and Sovereignty

2008-03-05T21:25:00.000-08:00

Huang Jei-Hsuan of California

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) surreptitious hedge on the fate of Taiwan's sovereignty has come home to roost.

The uproar surrounding his loyalties stems from the KMT's haphazard handling of Taiwan's sovereignty. This long-standing mindset is itself a manifestation of the party's ultimate goal of uniting Taiwan with China.

The fact that Ma and the KMT are running his presidential campaign by focusing on integrating Taiwan's economy into China's while muddling all underlying sovereignty issues further underscores the urgency of vetting Ma in that particular light.

During his mercurial rise Ma has at times attempted to convince the Taiwanese people that he is a Chinese Taiwanese. Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) once even went so far as to proclaim Ma a "new" Taiwanese. Ma's US green card brouhaha has complicated those claims.

Should it be found that Ma kept his green card in the closet for years, and that the primary reason he tried to become an American in the first place was an instinctive yearning to belong to a nation when the one he was attached to up to that juncture was fast sinking into a "non-nation," the fundamental legitimacy of Ma's candidacy would be called into question. It would indicate the lack an undivided allegiance to Taiwan.

Significantly, Ma applied for his green card in 1974, three years after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) abandoned the Republic Of China's (ROC) seat at the UN and at the height of public anxiety over the imminent derecognition of Chiang's ROC by the US. Equally noteworthy is the fact that Chiang concurrently turned down an opportunity to remain in the UN by refusing to define Taiwan's sovereignty, marking the beginning of another chapter of the KMT's treachery toward Taiwan.

In other words, Ma was, if not still is, a person with a nation while nearly all Taiwanese weren't, at least not with an internationally recognized one, a reality which Chiang ascertained in 1971. This, combined with the fact that Ma has always vehemently defended the notion that the ROC is a state, speaks volume on Ma's disingenuousness.

Ma's constant aversion to an independent Taiwan compounds that outrage. So does his continuing objection to a referendum for a UN bid using the name "Taiwan" that would expand the nation's international space in the long run.

These sentiments reflect the contradiction of Ma's pursuing an office that symbolizes Taiwan's sovereignty, the very subject Ma and the KMT are trying to compromise at every turn.

The moral of Ma's situation should serve as a reminder to the Taiwanese people of the relevancy of issues pertaining to democratization and sovereignty in this month's poll.

KMT Caucus Has Tricks New and Old

2008-03-05T21:22:00.000-08:00

A mere two weeks into the new legislative session, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus has already given the public and its Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and Non-Partisan Solidarity Union (NPSU) counterparts a taste of its two-thirds majority in the Legislative Yuan.

On Feb. 27, during the first Procedure Committee meeting, the KMT blocked several bills from advancing to a review in their respective legislative committees. Among them was a draft bill that would require the KMT to return its stolen assets, the Cabinet's request to abolish the Organic Law of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall Management Office (中正紀念堂管理處組織條例), to amend the Income Tax Law (所得稅法) and to abolish tax-exempt status for military personnel, civil servants and public school teachers.

Moreover, despite KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) insistence on the importance of letting sunshine bills pass, the KMT caucus on Tuesday chose to ignore a legislative decision and pushed proposed amendments to the Public Functionary Assets Disclosure Law (公職人員財產申報法), the Civil Servants Conflict of Interests Prevention Act (公務人員利益迴避法) and the Political Donation Law (政治獻金法) back to a first reading, citing no urgent need to put the amendments directly to a second reading.

Then there was the "winner takes all" approach, in which the KMT lawmakers dominated the Legislative Yuan's committee head elections on Monday, winning 15 of the 16 seats in the eight standing committees.

The KMT caucus' aggression even angered its longtime ally, NPSU Legislator Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), who was annoyed at the KMT caucus for failing to keep its promise to leave at least one committee top job for the NPSU.

There was also the brazen demonstration of indifference to conflicts of interest by a number of KMT lawmakers, including Wu Ching-chih (吳清池) and Chiu Yi (邱毅), who despite being embroiled in legal cases, shamelessly signed up to be members of the Judiciary Committee and the Organic Laws and Statutes Committee, with Wu actually elected as one of the committee heads.

In view of the ongoing madness in the legislature, who should be held responsible, the KMT or Ma?

It appears that the KMT presidential hopeful has no influence of any sort over his party's lawmakers and is unable to keep them in line. Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that he did not even issue a word of condemnation toward these lawmakers' agendas.

With the March 22 presidential election almost upon us, one would think lawmakers would want to be on their best behavior to avoid doing anything that may affect their presidential candidate's electoral prospects. But apparently these lawmakers have no scruples in squandering taxpayer money by placing partisanship and self-interest above the well-being of the nation.

Pity the voters who thought they were doing something positive for the country when they cast their ballots on Jan. 12.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 6, 2008.

Piracy, Copy Protection, and the Evolution of PC Gaming

2008-03-05T21:13:00.000-08:00

By Loyd Case of notes from the lab at ExtremeTech

I'm a PC gamer.

There, I've said it. These days, saying that seems to have an nostalgic, almost anachronistic sound. I predict that calling myself a PC gamer will be like someone today bragging about their 8-track collection.

That's not to say that PC gaming is doomed. But the days of PC gaming as I knew it is probably coming to an end, and something very different will be replacing it. One reason is the ongoing battle between game publishers and pirates.

Piracy is rampant in PC games. Piracy also exists in console gaming, but it's far more risky. Console game pirates have to burn physical media or even mod the consoles, which can result in legal games being unplayable and the modder being booted from online services, like Microsoft's Xbox Live.

PC gaming piracy, on the other hand, is easier. Crack the game, feed it to the world using Bittorent or other file sharing schemes, and the game is available to the world. In the past, the game publishers and developers have used a myriad of schemes to combat piracy. In the old days, you had games that literally booted from the floppy disk. Other games forced you to enter text directly from the manual to continue playing. Then there were the infamous code wheels, such as those shipped with some LucasArts flight sims.

Once optical drives became prevalent, various schemes were created to check for the presence of the CD. In addition, CD keys—essentially password checks to legally install a game—have become common. As pirates became smarter and more aggressive, copy protection became more elaborate. Schemes such as Starforce and the more recent versions of SecuROM created headaches for legitimate users, introducing compatibility and performance problems. Sometimes it's just too much of a headache to get a game running.

How rampant is copy protection? It's certainly very common in AAA games. Take this tidbid, snatched from Robert Bowling's blog. Robert is the community manager for Infinity Ward, creator's of the highly popular Call of Duty 4. In his post, "They Wonder Why People Don't Make PC Games Any More", Robert notes:

On another PC related note, we pulled some disturbing numbers this past week about the amount of PC players currently playing Multiplayer (which was fantastic). What wasn't fantastic was the percentage of those numbers who were playing on stolen copies of the game on stolen / cracked CD keys of pirated copies (and that was only people playing online).

Not sure if I can share the exact numbers or percentage of PC players with you, but I'll check and see; if I can I'll update with them. As the amount of people who pirate PC games is astounding. It blows me away at the amount of people willing to steal games (or anything) simply because it's not physical or it's on the safety of the internet to do.

On a related note, Iron Lore Entertainment shut down. The reasons are complex, but part of the problem may be lost sales of Titan Quest due to piracy. Michael Fitch, who worked closely with Iron Lore, offered up his thoughts:

So, ILE (shut down. This is tangentially related to that, not why they shut down, but part of why it was such a difficult freaking slog trying not to. It's a rough, rough world out there for independent studios who want to make big games, even worse if you're single-team and don't have a successful franchise to ride or a wealthy benefactor. Trying to make it on PC product is even tougher, and here's why.

Piracy. Yeah, that's right, I said it. No, I don't want to re-hash the endless "piracy spreads awareness", "I only pirate because there's no demo", "people who pirate wouldn't buy the game anyway" round-robin. Been there, done that. I do want to point to a couple of things, though.

One, there are other costs to piracy than just lost sales. For example, with TQ, the game was pirated and released on the nets before it hit stores. It was a fairly quick-and-dirty crack job, and in fact, it missed a lot of the copy-protection that was in the game. One of the copy-protection routines was keyed off the quest system, for example. You could start the game just fine, but when the quest triggered, it would do a security check, and dump you out if you had a pirated copy. There was another one in the streaming routine. So, it's a couple of days before release, and I start seeing people on the forums complaining about how buggy the game is, how it crashes all the time. A lot of people are talking about how it crashes right when you come out of the first cave. Yeah, that's right. There was a security check there.

…

Two, the numbers on piracy are really astonishing. The research I've seen pegs the piracy rate at between 70-85% on PC in the US, 90%+ in Europe, off the charts in Asia. I didn't believe it at first. It seemed way too high. Then I saw that Bioshock was selling 5 to 1 on console vs. PC. And Call of Duty 4 was selling 10 to 1. These are hardcore games, shooters, classic PC audience stuff. Given the difference in install base, I can't believe that there's that big of a difference in who played these games, but I guess there can be in who actually paid for them.

Let's dig a little deeper there. So, if 90% of your audience is stealing your game, even if you got a little bit more, say 10% of that audience to change their ways and pony up, what's the difference in income? Just about double. That's right, double. That's easily the difference between commercial failure and success. That's definitely the difference between doing okay and founding a lasting franchise. Even if you cut that down to 1% - 1 out of every hundred people who are pirating the game - who would actually buy the game, that's still a 10% increase in revenue. Again, that's big enough to make the difference between breaking even and making a profit.

Casual Games Suffer

It's not just a problem with standard PC games shipping on CD media. Even casual games suffer, as Russell Carroll of Reflexive noted in his Gamasutra column:

"It looks like around 92% of the people playing the full version of Ricochet Infinity pirated it." It's moments like those that make people in the industry stop dead in their tracks. 92% is a huge number and though we were only measuring people who had gotten the game from Reflexive and gone online with it, it seemed improbable that those who acquired the game elsewhere or didn't go online were any more likely to have purchased it. As we sat and pondered the financial implications of such piracy, it was hard to get past the magnitude of the number itself: 92%.

Not all publishers are suffering to this extent. Stardock, the developer of the Galactic Civilizations series and publisher of the well-received Sins of a Solar Empire have achieved success without using any form of physical copy protection. You do need a legitimate CD key to play online, but you don't need the physical disc in the drive. Sins of a Solar Empire sold 100,000 copies in its first three weeks—very good for an indie title with a small marketing budget.

You can argue that Stardock's games are something of a niche play, but one reason for Stardock's success is the constant pushing of fresh content for free to its legitimate users. On top of that, a substantial portion of Stardock's game profit came from direct sales through its online service, Totalgaming.net. Finally, Stardock doesn't make most of its revenue from games; its main focus and primary income are Windows utilities, such as TweakVista and WindowBlinds.

Still, this is one example of how piracy forcing PC gaming to evolve in different directions. Another direction is the increasing use of online services to manage legal content. An example of this is Valve Software's Steam. Steam helps users manage their game installations, acts as a game purchase tool for downloaded content, and provides content protection. It's not perfect, though. For Valve's own games, Steam works fine, but sometimes the content protection required by the original publisher of non-Valve games causes headaches, as occurred at the release of BioShock.

Microsoft is trying something similar with its Windows Live for Gaming, including trying to help develop standards for content protection. Valve is also moving into the arena of supplying their tools to third parties, without requiring distribution on Steam, by offering Steamworks. So it may be that online distribution and content protection through online authorization will be one way PC games evolve.

Other services, such as Wild Tangent, began as causal game services, and is now looking to move into the realm of higher budget, more traditional titles.

Of course, massively multiplayer online games essentially do this already. That idea is somewhat obscured by the monthly fees most MMOs charge, but the success of Guild Wars, which is an MMO-lite that gets its revenues from boxed product sales rather than regular fees, is another example of this approach.

Another model that some companies are considering is free. That is, the base game is free, but new content, or enhanced game play, may cost users additional money. Alternatively, advertising may play a role. EA plans on using a bit of both models with its upcoming Battlefield Heroes.

What's worrisome, though, is that even indie developers are thinking about abandoning the PC, which has long been the haven for small independent shops. Initiatives like Microsoft's XNA, as well as Xbox Live Arcade, enables small developers to participate in the console environment, ensuring greater protection and wider exposure.

This is one of the key issues that was behind the formation of the PC Gaming Alliance, but I have my doubts. But if the PCGA can force some kind of standardization for copy protection, that may be a good thing.

So the future of PC gaming is somewhat hazy. PCs will certainly remain a viable, vital part of the electronic gaming medium, but it's going to evolve into something quite different from the old boxed goods model. In fact, multiple models, such as free (with micropayments or ad-supported), online distribution and MMO-lite, may all coexist.

The monolithic world of PC gaming, then, will be dead. But instead of a single bird rising up from the ashes, we'll see multiple phoenixes, all viable, and all interesting.

Now, if I can just make my game work without having to install a new graphics driver for every hot game that comes out, I'll be happy. But that's a topic for a different column.

People-Friendly Tech

2008-03-05T21:05:00.000-08:00

By Jason Cross of My tech life at ExtremeTech

Take a look at the following web search portals: yahoo.com, msn.com, google.com. Which would you rather use? Google isn't just the most popular search engine (by far) because it delivers the most relevant search results and indexes most of the web. It has also made a point, from day one, to offer a very simple portal page with nothing but the basics needed for search. If you want news, or weather, or email, or whatever-else, you go to a different portal. Putting all that crap on the Yahoo! and MSN home pages, in effect, is making assumptions about your searches.

They're saying "we bet you're going to search for the top news headline, and the weather, and sports, and some generic shopping terms…" which of course, you aren't. Or if you are, the odds that the portal page is showing you the things you would have searched for are pretty low. It's a bunch of noise, and regardless of what the click-through stats may say, we all know that nobody actually wants it.

Of course, they're starting to learn their lessons. Microsoft's new and improved search engine, Live.com, is as sparse as Google, and so is the new Ask.com. They're simple, usable, and attractive. They're poor portals from a business sense, because they're harder to monetize. But nobody goes to a search portal for its monetization features.

The rest of the tech world is going the same way. Smart phones and PDAs used to be expensive, ugly, clunky, and useful primarily for their ability to keep all your business contacts, email, and calendar updated when you're away from the office. That used to be enough. But now regular people are buying smart phones. They want the phone itself to be sleek and attractive. They want it to be vastly easier to use. They want music players and games and web browsers that work.

One could easily look at the number of Windows Mobile phones sold in a year, compared to the number of iPhones, and say that targeting the "hard to use but integrates well with corporate IT departments" market is still stronger. But it's not getting your company on the cover of Time or Newsweek. It's not making the blogs harp on about every tiny little software update or nifty application. Most importantly, no matter how much money you bring in, it's not making the stock price go up.

Coming to Grips with People-Oriented Tech

A whole host of companies are coming to grips with the fact that the next 15 years of technology—gadgets, computers, cars, software, phones, etc.—are not going to be like the last 15 years. The success of technology companies is going to increasingly rely on their ability to make their products approachable, dramatic, attractive, and usable by ordinary people. Perhaps there is no better example of a company making this transition than Microsoft.

Windows has some serious advantages over OS X when it comes to large-scale deployment. There's nothing in OS X as useful for IT departments and the Group Policy stuff in Windows, for instance. Nonetheless, Vista uptake is not what was expected (despite Microsoft's claims about how satisfied they are with it) and there's a large public sentiment that it's simply not much better than Windows XP.

Part of the problem is that, despite a wide number of under-the-hood changes, the UI itself is too much like a sleeker, polished version of XP. The Start button doesn't say Start anymore and there are "breadcrumbs" in Explorer, but really dramatic changes are nowhere to be seen. When Vista was code-named Longhorn, and they would show off concept videos at the Platform Developers Conference, the interface was dramatically different. Over time, as the release approached, it was focus-grouped and committee'd into oblivion, and we're left with an interface that is more usable, yes, but also all too familiar.

In planning and executing the user interface for Windows Vista, Microsoft lost sight of one simple truth: Nobody can see what is under the hood, and nobody will care unless they run into problems. And that's a bad kind of caring. Low-level changes need to be accompanied by the kind of high-level, highly visible changes that shake up people's familiarity. People aren't going to say "this network transfer is fast!" in a new system unless the network transfer at first looks different, shocking a placid audience into paying attention.

Microsoft is stuck on an unfortunate road for this new future of sexy, user-centric computing. They build software made to run on a wide variety of hardware, often with dramatically different capabilities. Their customers will get this software when buying a device (computer, phone, whatever) from a company that licensed the software with little say in its development, or whose voice was part of a cacophony of competing vendors. They'll buy the cheapest parts they can to make the most profit possible.

And then there are the parts of Microsoft that have got the message. In the Entertainment and Devices division, products like Zune and Xbox have top-to-bottom control over the hardware and software. Not only are the devices slick-looking and approachable, but the software that runs on them is shockingly usable, for a Microsoft product. The Zune desktop software is slick, fast, pretty, user-customizable, and in general a joy to use. The Xbox 360 dashboard takes an enormous number of capabilities and settings, content and services, and presents it in a logical fashion.

Oddly enough, the champion of simple, attractive, user-centric design, Apple, has slipped in some areas. iTunes used to be the most elegant way to organize and purchase music. Over time, so many features have been tacked on that the interface is now cluttered, busy, slow, and cumbersome.

The next few years will deliver lots of nifty new tech: phones built on Google's Android platform, Windows 7, future iTunes deployments and iPods/iPhones, Zune updates, next-generation consoles, fancier in-dash car computing, and much more. Will enough time be spent making sure products are the kind of attractive, simple, eminently usable things that you could hand to anyone without explaining how to use it?

Will more products, services, and software go the way of Palm, falling far from a high perch because they couldn't adjust to the new market demands? Will old-guard tech companies like IBM, Microsoft, Dell, or HP land on the cover of major news magazines and newspapers with a truly "gotta have it" product or service, or will they continue to sell to a dwindling market of those willing to put up with technology instead of delighting in it?

Bringing the Business Back Home

2008-03-04T21:59:00.000-08:00

By Shen Chung-hua 沈中華, translated by Ted Yang

Attracting businesses based in China back to Taiwan to register on the domestic stock exchange has been a recurring issue for those concerned about the country's economic development.

Businesspeople's reluctance to return can be attributed not only to the fact that if they returned they would have to meet the 40 percent investment cap on China-bound investment, but also to several other factors.

The world's stock exchanges can be divided into two kinds based on their design. The first mainly works as a trading platform. Examples are Hong Kong, Singapore and the US. The main characteristic of this kind of exchange is that a company does not need to make a physical investment, such as opening a factory, or register with the stock exchange before it can raise capital.

This means that a company can operate in a place other than where it is listed. This includes financial holding companies that differentiate between the place of operations of daughter companies and the location where they are listed. This kind of exchange also allows companies to register at locations other than where they are listed.

Suppose that a financial holding company registered in the Cayman Islands has two subsidiaries, one in China and one in Vietnam. It can invest in Hong Kong, but not in Taiwan, because Hong Kong regulations allow for stock exchange listings, company registration and operations to take place at different locations.

The second kind of exchange requires a company to both invest and register in the country before it can be listed where it is domiciled.

This kind of exchange is investment-oriented. Regulations require that a company must have made physical investments two to three years prior to a stock exchange listing and also that it is registered in the same country -- paying taxes -- and makes a certain annual return on its investments every year before it can be listed on the exchange.

The result is that although the Taiwanese government's original goal was to convince Taiwanese businesspeople to list on the local market, in effect it is asking them to invest in Taiwan. The reasoning behind this is that if a company wants to come here to raise capital, it must first invest. The stock exchanges in Taiwan, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and Thailand all operate this way.

Taking a closer look, we can see that the design of financial centers in advanced countries lean toward the first kind -- providing a trading platform -- while those in developing countries tend to be investment-oriented, and there is a reason for that.

Platform-oriented stock exchanges simply provide a trading platform and make money from review fees to lawyers and accountants and high fees for listings and licenses.

Listing fees for the Hong Kong Stock Exchange can reach HK$20 million (US$2.6 million), but implicit costs are low since listed companies can have their operations at low-cost locations. Hong Kong thus welcomes foreign companies to raise capital there. After all, those who invest in the company are not necessarily from Hong Kong and it doesn't matter where the actual operations are located. The Hong Kong Stock Exchange focuses more on finance and less on manufacturing.

Although listing fees are lower on investment-oriented stock exchanges like Taiwan's, the implicit costs are high because a listed company cannot operate from a lower-cost location. The philosophy behind this is if a company wants to raise capital in a country, it should also invest in a factory, hire local people and decrease unemployment. This is a two-birds-with-one stone concept: listing on the exchange and promoting investment. The focus is on investment, though, and thus places more stress on manufacturing and less on the finance.

But this strategy only works when both the local tangible economy and the local financial economy attract investors, such as they did in Taiwan in 1989. This means that even if the cost for being listed on the Taipei Stock Exchange is low and the profit to earnings ratio and turnover are high, companies still have to invest in Taiwan for two years before they can be listed on the exchange. For many Taiwanese companies, this is very difficult.

Advocates of this system only consider the open cost of listing on the stock exchange while ignoring the implicit costs and thus fail to understand the reason why Taiwanese companies are not returning to be listed on the local stock exchange.

The root problem lies in whether we want Taiwanese companies to return to be listed on the stock exchange, or to both invest and be listed. If a company that does very well in Vietnam wishes to return to Taiwan to be listed on the stock exchange, it must have made a physical investments for two years before it can be listed. However, the reason why the company decided to invest in Vietnam in the first place was probably because Vietnamese labor costs were lower than those in Taiwan. With that incentive still in place, how can these companies be expected to return?

The answer is that the only way to succeed in killing two birds with one stone is to abandon that very strategy.

Taiwan's stock exchange wants to become a trading platform, but the Mainland Affairs Council, the Central Bank of China and the Ministry of Economic Affairs want it to be investment-oriented.

In order to attract China-based Taiwanese businesspeople to come back and be listed on the local stock exchange, or, even more ideally, to turn Taiwan into a financial hub, investment-oriented thinking should be abandoned for the trading platform concept. Hopefully this will happen soon.

Shen Chung-hua is a professor at National Taiwan University's Department of Finance.

There Is Hope for Taiwan

2008-03-03T18:26:00.000-08:00

By Chang Yi-Hsin of Kaohsiung

I took part in the "Walk Against the Wind" on the last day. I was touched by the support and I was filled with hope and love.

At the beginning of the walk, we received thousands of high-fives and cheers. Many supporters said, "There is hope for Taiwan." With tears in their eyes, some even prepared water and food for us. When my legs got tired, their support and words made me carry on.

I come from Taipei, but after the election on Jan. 12, I lost hope for the city. However, when we passed over the bridge between Taipei City and Taipei County, I saw hundreds of people waiting for us under the bridge. I was so touched that my eyes filled with tears. The most touching thing was, I bumped into my good friend's father. He hugged me and I could not control myself, the tears poured out. Many people supported us and as we slapped our hands together for high-fives, we came together because of Taiwan.

At the Zhongshan Soccer Stadium that evening, thousands showed their support. We bowed and thanked them. "Taiwan still has hope," I thought as I left the stage in tears. Maybe the "Walk Against the Wind" is over, but its spirit will last forever.

A Vote for One Man is a Vote for the Future

2008-03-03T18:23:00.000-08:00

By Cao Changqing 曹長青, translated by Anna Stiggelbout and Ted Yang

Last Thursday, 100,000 people gathered at Taipei's Zhongshan Soccer Stadium to commemorate the 228 Incident. The nature of the tragedy that took place 61 years ago was two-fold: The Chiang family asserted its autocratic rule by means of a massacre; and the alien regime used violence to destroy Taiwanese identity. Therefore, commemorating the victims of the 228 Incident is an effort not only to prevent the recurrence of such a tragedy but to improve the democratic system and safeguard Taiwanese identity.

For Taiwanese, "identity" means that they have the right to decide what their own culture and country are. But if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) were to stage a comeback in the presidential elections less than 20 days from now, it would cast a shadow on democracy and damage Taiwanese identity.

First, now that the pan-blue political parties control three-quarters of the legislative seats, if the KMT were to gain executive power, there would be no system of checks and balances in the government. Taiwan would become a single-party system and thus less democratic.

An example of this is Singapore, where the party of former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew (李光耀), controls more than three-quarters of the legislative seats and rules the city-state as a one-party authoritarian regime. Singapore was ranked as "not free" in the Global Press Freedom 2007 report by the human-rights organization Freedom House.

Such a situation is very rare in Western countries with mature democracies. If we allow a political party that autocratically ruled Taiwan for half of a century and now has close relations with rival China to completely control Taiwan's political system, the consequences could be grim.

Also, the KMT candidates' plan for a common market with China comes down to killing Taiwanese identity with soft measures, as opposed to oppressing it with violence as in the 228 Incident. A common market is another path paving the way for unification.

Because of the US, China cannot annex Taiwan by military means, so Beijing's other is to engender economic and cultural unification. The common market policy of KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his followers is exactly what Beijing wants, because this allows the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to use its tactics and to exercise influence in Taiwan under the guise of a common market.

Chinese products, Chinese culture and Chinese ideology -- that is, chauvinism with nationalism at the core -- will enter Taiwan, and the pan-blue camp will chime in. The result could very well be the formation of a pro-unification mentality that would eventually take Taiwan toward some form of unification. By that time, even if Ma doesn't want unification, it might be hard to avoid. In any case Ma has said he wants "eventual reunification."

This is like the Chiang era, when Taiwan forged an anti-communist mentality. At that time, even if Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) or his son Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) came up with new ideas, such as when former vice president Lien Chan (連戰) brought up an alliance with the CCP, such ideas could not be put into practice, even though the Chiangs had power. This was because the mentality of society as a whole had made such ideas impossible.

The common market policy paves the way toward a mentality that is completely contrary to that of the Chiang era -- a pro-Chinese mentality -- and eventually to a pro-Beijing and pro-unification mentality. Once this mentality is formed, it might be very difficult to defend not just Taiwanese identity, but Taiwan's democracy and independence.

That's why the presidential election is not just a choice between two men, but a choice for the future of Taiwan.

Cao Changqing is a political commentator based in the US.

The KMT is Killing National Defense

2008-03-03T16:59:00.000-08:00

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has struck again. After years of successfully blocking arms appropriation bills in the legislature, the party has now managed to shoot down, before it could even take off, a venture that could have been of tremendous benefit to the nation's ability to defend itself.

As this newspaper has argued before, Taiwan Goal, the semi-private arms manufacturer at the heart of a recent controversy, could have provided the military with the means to develop weapons systems that would have best suited the nation's defense needs and allow it to circumvent many of the barriers to procurement that the nation faces because of its international isolation.

But as a result of the KMT's smear campaign and threat to launch an investigation should the company not be disbanded, that project is now dead.

This raises a number of issues about KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) promise, made in his speech before the Association for the Promotion of National Security last month, to strengthen the nation's deterrence capabilities.

First, Ma argues that the "offensive defense" philosophy espoused by the Democratic Progressive Party administration -- in which, rather than taking place on Taiwan proper, battle is pushed "offshore" -- is counterproductive. Ma says that the KMT would instead work to strengthen the nation's command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) capabilities to ensure that a first strike would not cripple Taiwan's ability to defend itself.

While strengthening one's defenses is a sound strategy, reliance on that alone speaks of a lack of understanding of the concept of deterrence, which involves the threat of force to dissuade an opponent from launching an attack in the first place. This cannot exist if the strategy, as proposed by Ma, is one of homeland defense alone. In other words, deterrence is the promise of punitive action, not merely passive resistance. Security specialists are unanimous on this point: Taking the fight "offshore" is the wisest course for Taiwan.

Second, Ma's defense plan reiterates the need to obtain F-16C/Ds to modernize the Air Force. Again, this makes sense, but it is symptomatic of a policy of reliance on US systems that will be costlier than one of indigenous or semi-indigenous development. The dependence on US weapons is, at best, a short-term palliative and drains national resources that could be better spent elsewhere. One wonders, therefore, if the KMT perhaps does not stand to gain from ensuring that Taiwan continues to buy weapons from the US alone.

Taiwan Goal, while no panacea, would have been a step in the right direction, and unlike what some critics have argued, it would have tapped into the nation's world-class private technology industries -- with or without help from the government.

By shutting it down and by opposing a deterrence strategy, the KMT has demonstrated a total ignorance of what the cost of a Chinese invasion would be for Taiwan. By closing the door on new possibilities for weapons development and acquisition, the KMT has revealed an inability to move beyond the unhealthy reliance on the US as a patron for the nation's defenses, which also imposes a needless financial burden on the taxpayer.

Such an approach to defense could only have been dreamed up by a party that does not believe that China would resort to force to settle cross-strait tensions. But as we saw from the manner in which Taipei's envoys to Seoul were treated last week -- a delegation that included Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) of the KMT -- the pan-blue camp has a rare talent for misreading Beijing's intentions.

Taipei Times Editorial, March 4, 2008.

It's Only An Elementary School Science Fair, Not The Nobel Prize

2008-03-02T22:07:00.000-08:00

By Alina Tugend, New York Times news service, New York

Heavily influenced by the Internet, science projects have come a long way. One thing hasn't changed: There's still a right and wrong way to help your kids with them

I don't remember a whole lot from my elementary school days, but I do recall my science fair project -- putting one plant in the sun, one in the shade, watering a third and denying a fourth any hydration.

The results, I have to admit, were fairly predictable. But one thing is for sure: As uninspired as this experiment was, it was cheap and wholly my own.

The elementary school that my younger son attends does not have a science fair, and my older child does not participate in that after-school option in his middle school. So I have been somewhat in the dark -- like my plant -- about how much things have really changed.

The biggest difference is that there is now an Internet, which is full of Web sites promoting science fair projects. I am not advocating them; after all, there are plenty of science experiments one can do using stuff readily available in the house or outdoors.

Nor am I suggesting that parents, some of whom are already too wrapped up in their children's work, start trolling through endless science project sites. And some of the sites, with their overwrought promises of helping students create winning projects, seem to miss the point. Call me an innocent, but shouldn't the goal of science fairs be to teach children how to do scientific research, not win blue ribbons?

But, that said, the Web sites can be a good resource tool. The question is how to sort the wheat from the chaff (a potential project?).

Kenneth Hess, founder and president of Science Buddies, a nonprofit group that runs www.sciencebuddies.org, which does not sell products, noted that there was a major difference between a science activity and an experiment.

"An experiment starts with a question and then good old-fashioned research," he said. "A lot of kits on science activity may be fun and engaging, but are kids learning? It's a little like the difference between connect the dots and making your own drawing."

On www.stevespanglerscience.com, for example, you can pay US$9.95 for the Baby Diaper Secret Science Fair Kit (for ages six and up with adult supervision); US$14.95 for the bacteria growing kit; or US$59.95 for 2,500 Color Changing UV Beads (you supply the sunscreen).

The trouble, said Shawn Carlson, who was awarded a 1999 MacArthur Fellowship for science education, is that there are thousands of Web sites catering to science projects, but "only a handful are seriously devoted to science."

Carlson, who runs his own Web site, said a first step was to determine the background of the person running the site.

"Is it someone authoritative, or is it a mom who's done some science projects?" he asked.

Then look at the experiments offered.

"Do they look like every other science experiment you've ever seen -- exploding volcanoes, growing bread mold? The best projects are not complete cookie cutter. They teach the general techniques to study a certain sphere of nature and then give you direction on how to ask your own original questions," Carlson said.

Steve Spangler, a former elementary school teacher and local science television reporter in Denver, agrees that kits should be a start to an experiment, not the completion of one.

He claims to be the discoverer of the always popular "drop the Mentos in Diet Coke and watch the geyser," featured on his Web site.

EXPERIMENTATION

But "when kids drop Mentos into a Diet Coke, it's not a science project," he said.

"They should look at how high it goes, how many Mentos can you put in, does changing brands make a difference, does using hot or cold liquid change it?" he said.

Of the 900 products he sells, Spangler said, he develops 40 percent himself, often with the help of teachers. He also provides free step-by-step experiments.

While our local elementary school does not do a science fair, we do have the Invention Convention, in which fifth-graders make up their own contraptions. Who can forget my son's handy carrier (using one of my old leather belts) for iPod, cellphone and all your other immediate electronic needs?

But our neighboring school has a fair, for third-to fifth-graders, sponsored by the Parent Teacher Association, and it reflects the science fairs of my time.

The rules stipulate that no "commercially available kits" can be used.

Also banned are live animals and the handing out of food items and harsh or dangerous chemicals.

So the projects consist of how tadpoles grow into frogs, or figuring out how your nose works. And there are no losers -- or winners.

"It's a very, very basic science fair," said Sarah Murray, who helps organize the event and whose son examined which bat hit a ball harder -- metal or wood (no steroids experiments please).

This, of course, is as far from national or international science fairs as a Little League game is from the World Series.

Next month, the finalists in the Intel Science Talent Search, for high school seniors, will meet in Washington, and more than US$1 million worth of prizes are at stake.

The other big competition, the Intel Science and Engineer Fair, also attracts students with huge prizes -- and a chance to show off their doctoral-quality work.

At last year's fair, for example, more than 20 percent of the participants -- in grades 9 through 12 -- held or had applied for patents on their work.

We've come a long way from one of the early national science fairs, in 1955, when 14 students participated and the winner built a scale model of Eli Whitney's cotton gin, said Lawrence Bellipanni, a retired professor of biological sciences at the University of Southern Mississippi, who wrote his doctoral dissertation on science fairs.

PROFESSIONAL HELP

Bellipanni found that by the early 1990s, more than 60 percent of about 400 national finalists had either been mentored by a professional scientist or prepared their projects in a university or other research lab.

Even if your child is not of that caliber, you can still, say, mine DNA in your own kitchen. Carlson's site sells a US$37 DNA extraction kit, which the ad boasts, is like having a mini-CSI DNA laboratory in your home.

So perhaps your family could enjoy the benefit not just of a science project but also of solving local crimes.

Carlson's site offers free science projects, but for access to "over 1,000 Super Science Projects Right Now!" he charges US$17 a month or US$27 a year.

Gerry Wheeler, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association, said he had seen how these Web sites had flourished, but that parental involvement -- or overinvolvement -- is nothing new.

"It depends how intrusive parents get -- if instead of guiding, Mommy and Daddy are helping with the display," he said. "I've judged some science fairs, and it's clear when parents have done it."

And too many kits are more science demonstrations than experiments, he said, which do not give a child "a sense of process, of answering questions," he said.

"The hardest part is often coming up with the question and seeing if the experiment gives them the answer they expected. It's even better when it doesn't," Wheeler said.

Wheeler recalled when his daughter was in kindergarten and was fascinated with skulls. Her experiment was making a skull from a suckling pig head.

He said that he boiled the water, but she did everything else.

And realize, Bellipanni said, that while collections and models can be very nice, they are not science.

Some of the sites recommended by the people I talked to include the Discovery Channel's and the Exploratorium in San Francisco.

Hess, whose www.sciencebuddies.org site has corporate sponsors, said: "We feel it's important to make resources available to some parents who don't have the money."

His site also offers an "ask an expert" option, using volunteer scientists to answer questions.

Carlson says children need to be taught that while science can be fun, it is also hard work.

"If you only tell them science is fun, then when it gets to be hard work, you raise their expectations, only to dash them," he said. "Then they get turned off."

Well, I don't know about you, but I am excited to pursue some science now. Where is that DNA kit? Maybe we can track down who took the last piece of cake.

Provinces Pay for Green Olympics

2008-03-02T22:05:00.000-08:00

By Jonathan Watts of The Guardian, Beijing

Millions of liters of water are being diverted to Beijing from areas hit by drought, threatening supplies for the capital's neighbors

When seven white swans made a home on the Chaobai River in northeast Beijing last year, it was hailed as an Olympic success story. Until a few years ago, the waterway was so overexploited that the bed was cracked dry.

Now the river has been refilled and the wildlife brought back, ready for rowing events in August. For Beijing, it was a showcase of how the "green" games can improve the environment. But four months on, green activists are asking whether this and other cosmetic clean-ups are depriving arid regions of water during a severe drought.

Thanks to a huge diversion, the Shunyi Olympic Rowing-Canoeing Park project has turned a dry river and its banks into a lush resort with a water surface of 63 hectares and a green area of 53 hectares. It is not the only hydro-engineering facelift. Beijing is diverting millions of liters of water to ensure the dry and dusty city looks its best during the Olympics.

Workers are rushing to complete a huge canal that will channel water from the Yangtze and other rivers in southern China to the parched but densely populated north.

"In order to preserve the quality of Beijing's water we have to close all our factories."

An Qiyuan, Shaanxi Province official
Reservoirs around Beijing are being tapped to flush out the foul, polluted waterways in the center of the city and to fill the fountains and keep the grass green in the Olympic park. Meteorologists are even firing silver iodine crystals into the clouds to induce rain.

This work means that other needy areas are going dry. Last year, farmers in neighboring Hebei Province were told to grow corn or wheat instead of water-intensive rice. Tens of thousands of people have been relocated for a 309km section of the water diversion project that will redirect 300 million cubic meters of water from Hebei. In any year this would be a sacrifice.

But this year's drought is severe. Last week the Hebei Daily said levels of winter rain and snow were 60 percent below the long-term average, leaving many reservoirs at very low levels.

"The severe drought has created tense conditions for water supplies in our province, and the conflict between water supply and demand has been dramatically exacerbated," it said.

Like many other Olympic projects, the water diversion was being planned anyway. Beijing needs more water because it has more flush toilets, more ornamental lakes, more building sites and more people. The population -- soon expected to hit 18 million -- has more than quadrupled since the 1960s.

But the Olympics is an excuse to accelerate development. The games are such a national priority that few dare risk being accused of lacking patriotism.

Tensions are apparent. Last week, a senior official in Shaanxi Province -- which is also being tapped for Beijing -- warned of social, economic and environmental disaster.

"In order to preserve the quality of Beijing's water we have to close all our factories. But we still need to live. So I say the government needs to compensate Shaanxi," An Qiyuan (安啟元), chairman of the Chinese people's political consultative committee for Shaanxi, told the Financial Times.

Activists accuse Beijing of sacrificing its neighbors.

"Using drinking water from Hebei and other poor provinces to provide for luxuries in Beijing is wrong," said Dai Qing (戴晴), a leading environmental activist. "Beijing will ensure the city has enough clean water in August, but it will only be temporary. In the longer term, the water crisis will worsen."

She said the park at Chaobai was the worst example of waste because it required filling a dry river and building one of the world's biggest fountains.

"This was a dry river. Why do they have to use this area for competition?" Dai said.

The water's origins are mysterious. The government insists the river is being filled from the Wenyu, a smaller Beijing waterway used for effluent, but Dai says the volume is insufficient. She suspects the water is from already depleted groundwater supplies and reservoirs.

Despite reports that the Olympics will raise water consumption by 30 percent, the Beijing City water bureau insists supplies diverted from Hebei and Shaanxi are for normal use, urban development and increased population.

"We never said we need extra water for the Olympics," said Yu Yaping (俞亞平), the bureau's propaganda director. "We don't know if the total volume of water will increase this year. In fact we are trying to promote measures to save water."

Such is the sensitivity that even the scale of the drought is hard to confirm.

"We can't give you any statistics. Our reservoir is too important to Beijing and to the Olympics. We can't tell you the trend," said an official of Miyun reservoir, who declined to give his name.

But the vice director of the rowing park, Zhang Xiangdong (張香東), insisted his project was a success.

"This was dry seven years ago. From last year, 40 million cubic meters of water is flowing into the Chaobai every year. We now have more than 100 kinds of trees that produce 50,000 tonnes of oxygen, which is good for the air. Last autumn, we had our first swans. Can you imagine how excited we felt? And by August, the Chaobai will be full," Zhang said.

Taiwan's Economy is Not Bad Off

2008-03-02T22:00:00.000-08:00

By Hwan C. Lin 林環牆, translated by Angela Hong

The Directorate General of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics recently announced that Taiwan's real GDP growth rate reached 6.86 percent in the third quarter of last year and was 6.39 percent in the fourth quarter. This means that the annual economic growth rate increased from 4.89 percent in the previous year to 5.7 percent -- above South Korea's 4.9 percent.

During the Democratic Progressive Party's (DPP) first four-year term from 2000 to 2003, economic growth averaged 2.9 percent annually, while in its second four-year term, growth rose to 5.3 percent. These changes are significant for several reasons.

First, the accusation that the economy has ground to a halt during the DPP's eight years in office is untrue. Second, the accusation that the DPP has enforced isolationist policies during its terms in office is a lie. If the DPP's policies had been isolationist, the related growth of export and manufacturing could not have become the main driving forces behind Taiwan's economy. Third, the accusation that Taiwan's international competitiveness has fallen behind Singapore's and South Korea's is also unfounded.

On Apr. 24 last year, the Chinese-language Economic Daily News sarcastically called the period between former president Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "no haste, be patient" policy and the DPP's terms in power the "10 lost years" of Taiwan's economy. I have previously criticized this argument and now that Singapore's and South Korea's statistics have become available, a comparison would be illustrative.

It has been 11 years since the implementation of the "no haste, be patient" policy in 1997. Singapore's real GDP growth rate during that period averaged 5.6 percent a year, South Korea's 4.4 percent and Taiwan's 4.5 percent. Apparently Singapore's was the strongest -- but only on the surface.

During the same period, Singapore's population grew by 2.01 percent annually, while Taiwan's and South Korea's only increased by 0.55 percent and 0.61 percent respectively. If the population growth rate is deducted from real GDP growth rate, then the real GDP growth rate per capita becomes 3.96 percent for Taiwan, ahead of 3.83 percent for South Korea and 3.55 percent for Singapore.

In the eight years of DPP rule, South Korea's real GDP per capita grew by 4.6 percent, ahead of Singapore's at 4.01 percent and Taiwan's at 3.65 percent. Looking at the DPP's second four-year term, Taiwan's real GDP per capita growth rate rose to 4.9 percent. Though this is slightly lower than Singapore's 5.28 percent, it is ahead of South Korea at 4.38 percent. It is difficult to observe any systemic evidence that Taiwan has lagged behind its two rivals.

As for Singapore, its economic growth potential is between 4 percent and 6 percent, data from its trade and industry department shows, equivalent to Taiwan's 5 percent. However, Singapore's distribution of income has worsened considerably: its Gini coefficient, an indicator of distribution of wealth between 0 and 1, where higher numbers indicate greater disparity, outstripped the US in 2006 and reached 0.485 last year.

As for South Korea, its terms of trade has worsened in successive years, causing real income to be grossly overestimated based on GDP. Regarding this issue, I have provided detailed estimates of this in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister newspaper).

The latest statistics from the Central Bank of South Korea show the terms of trade index for the country continued to deteriorate last year, dropping 4.1 percent below the previous year and dipping to its lowest point since 1988. The reason is that import prices are rising whereas South Korean semiconductor and electronics export prices continue to decline.

On Feb. 18, Chosun Iibo advised the South Korean government to prioritize the problem: in the fourth quarter last year, South Korea's real GDP expanded by 5.5 percent compared to the previous year, but real GDI -- real income -- was only 2.4 percent, after deducting losses from terms of trade.

Both presidential candidates have been admiring Singapore's and South Korea's economic performance. However, Taiwan, Singapore and South Korea are all similarly facing the challenge of a development bottleneck.

Hwan C. Lin is a research fellow at the Taiwan Public Policy Council and associate professor of economics at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Directorate General should be Director-general, according to RDEC, Executive Yuan.

First Debate Earns Mixed Review

2008-03-02T21:53:00.000-08:00

By Edward Chen 陳一新, translated by Angela Hong

THE FIRST TELEVISED presidential debate left me feeling that the first and second part, with questions from the public, were well designed although more akin to a press conference than a debate. The third part, where the candidates questioned each other, was simply an extension of their usual war of words. Finally, during the concluding remarks in the fourth part, one party continued to question the opponent's issues whereas the other party offered his visions, so that the two were wholly unrelated to each other.

In the first two parts, both Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) showed a good grasp of policy, and both appeared at their best.

Hsieh's strong point lay in his analysis of policy trends through references to his achievements as Kaohsiung mayor and as premier, while seizing opportunities to attack his opponent. For instance, Hsieh demanded that the KMT divide its party assets among low-income earners in order to raise the average income.

Ma's strength, on the other hand, was to answer questions clearly within the allotted time, with references integrating his experiences as Taipei mayor and KMT chairman with information prepared by his staff.

Hsieh's strengths were Ma's weaknesses, and vice versa. For instance, on issues dealing with the economy and the standard of living, Hsieh's talent for debate was unquestionable. He was able to strategically avoid questions, point out inconsistencies in his opponent's policy for raising national income or subsidizing low-income earners, and ask him where funds are to be found.

In comparison, Ma answered every question that was asked, emphasizing his frankness and reliability. Also, Hsieh's responses on judicial reform, foreign policy and gay rights appeared to be completely detached from reality. Indeed, on the issue of how he would deal with corruption if elected, he completely missed the point and focused on irrelevancies. In contrast, Ma could hardly wait to deliver the goods to the audience. As for time management, Ma rarely exceeded the allotted time, whereas Hsieh routinely ran over his time so that his answers often were incomplete. Their performance demonstrated Ma's preparation and the need for Hsieh's camp to improve.

During the policy questioning sections, Hsieh won in answering questions about Taiwanese identity -- partially because Hsieh is truly Taiwanese -- although Ma had vastly improved his pro-localization discourse through his "long stays" in the countryside. Although Hsieh had a good grasp on economic and livelihood issues, Ma was most successful in his criticism of the DPP's isolationist attitude, and in his strong faith in his ability to improve cross-strait relations and boost the economy through government investment.

The final question, asking each candidate to list the other's strengths, finally relaxed the previously combative and tense atmosphere. Both candidates were humorous and deserved the applause they received.

I had hoped that both candidates would perform better when questioning each other. However, the results were disappointing. Hsieh's first question was whether Ma held a US green card 20 or 30 years ago. This negative issue may have forced Ma to change tack and turn to criticizing the DPP's failure to fulfill its promise to take care of central and southern Taiwan, small and medium-sized businesses, and low to middle-income earners. Hsieh then attacked Ma for failing to revamp the Tamshui River and Jiancheng Circle.

Finally, the kid gloves came off and the two blasted each other for corruption at the hands of subordinates during their tenure as public officials. Nine minutes was wasted on mud slinging, and not a word about Taiwan's future was mentioned.

Worth noting is the fact that while Ma was forced to stay on the offensive, he only criticized Hsieh on a policy level, and did not mention the controversial tape recording that helped Hsieh win the Kaohsiung mayoral election, or the anti-Hsieh conspiracy theories.

In the last section of the debate, Hsieh relentlessly pursued the green card issue and questioned Ma's capability and trustworthiness. Ma outlined his vision for saving Taiwan's economy, assisting marginalized groups, reducing the difference between rural and urban areas, forming a government without corruption, and constructing a harmonious society.

It is a pity that Hsieh failed to make the best of these precious three minutes by discussing the future. Ma's conclusion was concise and powerful, demonstrating a presidential candidate's breadth of vision and elevated character.

On the whole, Hsieh's debating skills remain undoubted. However, his adeptness at dodging questions makes it difficult the public to probe his character through questions and follow-up questions. There are two ways of improving this situation.

First, questions from the public can be kept secret to prevent candidates from giving prepared responses and questioners should be allowed two follow-up questions.

Second, the debate organizers could invite specialists recommended by both sides to form a question team, so that candidates would have no way of hiding their intentions from the public. In terms of policy, both candidates have their own merits. Yet in regards to specific solutions to problems facing the nation, Ma apparently was more able to grasp the general future direction. While both candidates showed a sense of humor, they maintained their characteristic trademarks: One came off as tactful and smooth, the other as frank and honest.

Being a famed orator, Hsieh's performance was rather disappointing, perhaps a case of underperforming because of pressure. Ma also had many shortcomings that need improving. However, Ma had a clearer vision of the nation's future and many commendable character traits.

Edward Chen is a professor at Tamkang University's Graduate Institute of American Studies.

"....commendable character traits"!?

I guess corruption does pay!

As for "clearer vision of the nation's future", first off, there's this issue regarding the word "nation" that I don't think Ma is too comfortable talking about; and the vision thing, being "clear" does not equal being "better" for Taiwan.

Back from the Dead

2008-02-28T16:41:00.000-08:00

By Juliana Barbassa of AP, DAVIS, CALIFORNIA

The first time Jose Freeman heard his tribe's lost language through the crackle of a 70-year-old recording, he cried.

"My ancestors were speaking to me," Freeman said of the sounds captured when American Indians still inhabited California's Salinas Valley. "It was like coming home."

The last native speaker of Salinan died almost 50 years ago, but today many indigenous people are finding their extinct or endangered tongues, one word or song at a time, thanks to a linguist who died in 1961 and academics at the University of California, Davis, who are working to transcribe his life's obsession.

Linguist John Peabody Harrington spent four decades gathering more than 1 million pages of phonetic notations on languages spoken by tribes from Alaska to South America. When the technology became available, he supplemented his written records with audio recordings -- first using wax cylinders, then aluminum discs. In many cases his notes provide the only record of long-gone languages.

Martha Macri, who teaches California Indian Studies at UC Davis and is one of the principal researchers on the J.P. Harrington Database Project, is working with American Indian volunteers to transcribe Harrington's notations. Researchers hope the words will bridge the decades of silence separating the people Harrington interviewed from their descendants.

Freeman hopes his four-month-old great-granddaughter will grow up with the sense of heritage that comes with speaking her ancestors' language.

"When we lose our language, we're getting cut off from our roots," he said. "The world view that our ancestors carried is quite different from the Euro-American world view. And their language can carry that world view back to us."

Although it will be years before all the material can be made available, some American Indians connected to the Harrington Project have already begun putting it to use. Members of Freeman's tribe gather on their ancestral land every month to practice what they have learned -- a few words, some grammar, old songs.

"The ultimate outcome is to get it back to the communities it came from," Macri said.

By all accounts, Harrington was a devoted, if somewhat eccentric, scholar. Sometimes he spent 20 or 30 minutes on one word, saying it over and over until the person he was interviewing agreed he had gotten the pronunciation correct, said Jack Marr, who met Harrington as a 12-year-old and worked as his assistant into his 20s.

"They trusted him," Marr said of the Indians they worked with.

"A lot of people, if they tried to walk in and say `I want to record you,' they'd get thrown out. But not Harrington. I think people recognized that we were doing this for posterity."

Harrington's sense of urgency animates the letters he sent to Marr nearly every day.

"Rain or no rain, rush," Harrington said in one letter. "Dying languages depend on you."

However, that same drive has confounded efforts to pass the words down to new generations.

For instance, Harrington was so focused on gathering information that he spent little time polishing his work for publication, according to Marr. He hated wasting precious time being cooped up in an office.

And he was so deeply mistrustful of other researchers that he stashed much of his research as he traveled, deliberately keeping it out of reach of his colleagues. He kept even his employers at the Bureau of American Ethnology -- now the National Anthropological Archives -- in the dark about where he was and what he was doing, routing his mail through Marr's mother to cover his tracks.

After his death, the federal archives received boxes of Harrington's notes, recordings and other material from people who found them in barns and basements across the West. It took the archives until 1991 to transfer the voluminous notes to microfilm.

While linguists, archeologists, botanists and others have spent the years since combing through the files, Macri says the trove of information has remained all but inaccessible to members of the tribes themselves.

The Harrington Project was created with the goal of returning the words to the people who can imbue them with life again, as well as making the material more accessible to academics.

The researchers are teaching tribal members across California how to read Harrington's cramped handwriting and decipher his notation system.

Macri's team focuses on the more than 100 California languages Harrington catalogued, such as Wiyot, Serrano and Luiseno, for which there are few other records.

"It would be hard to exaggerate the linguistic diversity that existed at one time in California," Macri said. "It was more common to be multilingual than not."

Jacob Gutierrez, a member of the San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians -- Pipiimaram, in the tribe's own language -- has decoded all the material Harrington gathered on his people -- over 6,000 pages, and is now working on information about their linguistic neighbors.

"I find it to be the most rewarding work I have ever done," he said. "Every new word, story or song is an absolute treasure for me and my people."

Karen Santana, who started working on Harrington's notes about her Central Pomo tribe while she was a student at UC Davis, is drawing plans for a dictionary with phonetic spellings.

"I want to develop a system that will make sense to others," Santana said. "It's a lifelong goal, publishing something ... that my tribe can refer to."

Marr said Harrington would have been satisfied to see languages born again from his notes and recordings.

"But he would have felt very sad he didn't get more. He always wanted to do more," Marr said.

Forgetting What 228 Is Really About

2008-02-28T16:35:00.000-08:00

"I have tried to keep the memory alive. I have tried to fight those who would forget. Because if we forget, we are guilty ... not to remember would turn us into accomplices of the killers, to remember would turn anyone into a friend of the victims."

So said Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor and renowned author, in his 1986 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

Yesterday marked the 61st anniversary of the 228 Incident, and to this day some of the victims' families still do not know why their loved ones were killed or where their remains lie.

Tens of thousands of society's elite -- ethnic Taiwanese and Mainlander alike -- were arrested, tortured and murdered during the brutal military crackdown that began in late February 1947. The Incident began a tragic page in Taiwan's history and ushered in the White Terror era.

Sadly, the commemoration of this catastrophic event has seemingly become a formality. Politicians visit the families of victims, hold memorial services, give speeches and all the rest of it, but what most of them will not tell their listeners is that increasing numbers of people -- and especially the younger generations -- are doing exactly what Wiesel so eloquently warned against: forgetting.

Talk to young people today and many, if not most, would be unable to offer even a brief account of what took place 61 years ago.

Some may dismiss this as inevitable, but this need not be the case -- if the government and people of high standing care enough about their history and its unjust legacy.

Schools in many Western nations include The Diary of Anne Frank in school curriculums. Other than a comic book treatment of Taiwanese history that was released some years ago, there is no material in local school curriculums that performs the corresponding function of educating young people about the 228 Incident and humanizing its victims.

Young Taiwanese may shed the odd tear while watching Schindler's List, yet how many would feel a sense of connection when stories of the 228 Incident are told at commemorative services?

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday pledged to increase documentation of the 228 Incident to serve as a historical lesson for future generations if he is elected.

This is a welcome suggestion, but a fairly token one in the context of the ongoing lack of accountability of the KMT in relation to its stolen assets, ideological scars and autocratic residue -- the survival of which owes everything to the 228 Incident and what followed.

If Ma felt for the 228 Incident's victims and the agony suffered by their families, then he would have castigated his party for once again blocking a budget in the legislature that would have provided more support for the victims and their families.

We hear a lot from self-congratulatory Taiwanese about our democracy. But the meaning of "Taiwanese democracy" and its citizens' ability to defend it are tempered by the reality that more and more Taiwanese know nothing about -- and sometimes cruelly rationalize -- this nation's dirty history.

The last thing any person of conscience would hope to see is 228 Memorial Day following in the footsteps of other holidays, in which people vaguely do the "right thing" out of sheer habit and lack understanding of what the day represents.

As ordinary Taiwanese increasingly seek to depoliticize their lives, and as politicians turn the crimes of their fathers into their own political capital, this may turn out to be little more than a pipe dream.

Taipei Times Editorial, Feb. 29, 2008.

Counting the Cost of the Viagra Revolution

2008-02-26T17:16:00.000-08:00

By Amelia Hill and Robin McKie of The Observer, London

The blue pill that can cure male impotence was a startling discovery when it was launched in 1998. But while it has changed the relationships of millions of people, it has also played a major role in many breakups

It was the drug that transformed the sexual landscape. Before Viagra, impotence meant shame and often the collapse of all but the most committed relationships. The discovery of its startling ability to restore men's faded sexual function triggered a social revolution as monumental as that caused by the contraceptive pill.

Today Viagra -- launched in the US 10 years ago this month -- is the world's most ubiquitous medical brand name. Type it into Google and a search throws up more than 4 million references: 10 times more than Prozac and 20 times as many as Botox, its nearest competitors.

The drug has also spawned its own catalog of jokes and become a byword for efficacy and impact. Nicole Kidman's nude scene in the play The Blue Room was famously described as "pure theatrical Viagra," for example, while in the US the Survivor TV series was labeled "CBS' Viagra," a magic pill that made the network virile.

But just how much of all this publicity is hype? Has the "wonder pill" really lived up to its promise? Has it been a universal force for good?

From the financial perspective there can be little doubt. In the decade since Viagra first went on sale, more than 30 million men in 120 countries have been prescribed it. In addition, many millions more have bought it illegally on the Internet, or taken a few from their mates in bars for recreational use.

Indeed, the take-off of Viagra was one of the fastest that a new drug has ever seen. Almost immediately after its launch in the US, it was being prescribed at the rate of at least 10,000 a day.

In Atlanta, urologist John Stripling wrote out 300 prescriptions on the day it became available.

And there is no doubt much of this proliferation has been to the good of men and women, as Graham Jackson, a consultant cardiologist in London and an expert on sexual problems, explained.

"More than 20 percent of breakdowns of relationships are caused because a man has erectile problems. It can cause agony for a man when he cannot perform as he feels he should," he said.

"A lot of partners are kind and supportive. A few are cruel. And when you have huge great men crying like babies in your clinic, you get pretty desperate for something that will put their problems to right as soon as possible. Viagra has done that in a great many cases that have come to my clinic, I am glad to say," Jackson said.

Certainly, the drug has brought joy to many relationships. However, it has also had -- in many cases -- a destructive impact.

"Now men have a drug to help them get it up and get going, they have also shown a worrying tendency to get up and leave -- for younger women," as one sex counselor put it.

In the process, Viagra has become the third party in many marriage splits, increasingly cited in celebrity divorce cases, most recently with Wendy and Johnny Kidd, parents of supermodel Jodie and makeup guru Jemma.

"Older men are more able to perform again, so they're going elsewhere -- to younger, greener pastures," said New York divorce lawyer Raoul Felder, who recently acted for the wife of a 70-year-old man who began cheating on her days after taking Viagra.

In Florida's retirement communities, rates of sexually transmitted diseases among elderly men -- who have started visiting prostitutes after taking Viagra -- are soaring, it emerged recently.

Nor is this phenomenon restricted to the US.

"I have seen an exponential rise in divorce cases sparked by Viagra-fueled adultery,' said James Stewart, of the London law firm Manches.

So widespread and common is the use of Viagra that male clients now talk to him about taking it as openly and willingly as they would admit to taking Disprin for a headache, he said.

"The problem is that Viagra widens the age period in which men can commit adultery and that is the catalyst for most relationship breakdowns. On the other hand, Viagra has saved as many, if not more, marriages than it destroys," Stewart said.

"If a couple's sex life is bad, then that can give rise to all sorts of other problems. By improving a couple's intimate relationship, Viagra strengthens the marital bond," he said.

This point was backed by David Ralph, a consultant at the University College London's Institute of Urology.

"Viagra has transformed the lives not only of millions of patients with erectile dysfunction but the lives of their partners as well," he said.

In addition, media coverage means that after generations of taboo and refusing to talk about sexual failure, erectile dysfunction has become a subject that can be discussed openly, a point stressed by the author Erica Jong.

"Impotence was the great secret. Now suddenly, you can't go to a dinner party without having people talk about erections," she said.

This disappearance of sexual reticence has been particularly beneficial for the general health of the population, and is one of the major benefits of the Viagra revolution, say doctors. In making men less afraid to talk about their sexual problems, it is becoming easier to make diagnoses of more serious illnesses, as Ralph pointed out.

"The circulation problems that create erectile dysfunction can also be a sign of vascular blockage and diabetes," he said.

This point is supported by Jackson, who said that erectile problems are often the first symptoms of a general failing of a man's blood circulation and that this could go on to trigger heart attacks or other cardiac problems.

"So if men are more willing to come forward, then we can pick them up more speedily. That is why it is important that men don't just take Viagra -- or its partner drugs Levitra or Cialis -- when they first experience erectile problems but consult their doctors," he said.

"If they don't tell their GP [general practitioner] and just take Viagra to compensate, they will be heading into danger. To be fair to the drug companies involved, however, they have gone to great lengths to make sure these drugs are administered by GPs," he said.

Nevertheless, the widespread availability of Viagra has posed its own problems, not just for patients suffering circulation problems but for men of all ages who use it as a recreational drug.

"Viagra is spawning a nation of men who are dependent on the drug, particularly young men who develop the expectation that they should be able to just pop a pill and have sex, regardless of how they feel emotionally," psychotherapist Paula Hall said.

Talk show host Jerry Springer was one of the first to go public with a claim of dependency, while over-use of Viagra was blamed for turning the 66-year-old Earl of Shaftesbury from a kindly old man to someone who stalked the Riviera nightclubs for high-class prostitutes, it was claimed during the trial of his murderers two years ago.

Last year, the AIDS Healthcare Foundation launched a lawsuit accusing Pfizer of recklessly advertising Viagra, and turning it into a "party drug" whose use is fueling the AIDS epidemic. There are also concerns about those taking the drug on a non-prescription basis, but there is no documented evidence of any major loss of life involving recreational use.

"That is one of the great things about Viagra," Jackson said. "It has no really life-threatening side effects."

Roger Kirby, director of the Prostate Centre, London, agreed.

"Nothing much happens if someone without erectile dysfunction takes the drug," he said.

Indeed, Viagra can even make some illegal drugs safer, he said.

"For example, cocaine is a very dangerous drug because it causes coronary arteries to close and can sometimes give you a heart attack," Kirby explained. "Viagra has the opposite effect and so can help the cocaine user."

Such an effect is generally accidental, however. Most clubbers take cocaine-Viagra mixes -- known as "coconut pokes" -- to get high while still being able to perform sexually. Protection against heart attacks is not the prime concern here, needless to say.

Nor would it be correct to assume that the drug lacks significant side-effects, as consultant gynecologist David Glenn has warned. His research indicates that the drug is linked to infertility.

"Men who use it recreationally for long periods could be building up trouble for themselves in later years. They could find it difficult to father children," he said.

"We need to do a lot more research on the subject to find out. In the meantime, young men need to be careful. Viagra could have a cumulative impact on their fertility and on their chances of fathering children in the future," he said.

Another key issue concerns the idea that a drug that restores sexual ability to a man is sufficient on its own to put a threatened relationship back on track, as Susanna Abse, director of the Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, said.

"I regularly sit opposite couples who tell me that their problem is caused by his inability to get or to maintain an erection and that they think the answer is so simple. It would seem a straightforward course of Viagra is all that they need. But when I suggest it, they either refuse to try it, or they do try it and it still doesn't work," she said.

"The problem is that erectile dysfunction can become a defense for a couple against having to share sexual intimacy. It can be very frightening when the curtain is whisked away and you are forced to confront that issue," she said.

In general, however, Viagra has been a success story both for its manufacturer, Pfizer -- which has made more than US$2 billion from the drug, it is estimated -- and for users, many of whom have regained lost sexual prowess and have had their marriages and relationships revitalized.

"We've always been waiting for the magic bullet and this is pretty close," David Ralph said. "The one, accidental discovery leading to the wonder drug that is Viagra has transformed the lives not only of millions of patients with erectile dysfunction but the lives of their partners and their families too."

Or as Rafael Wurzel, a US physician, has put it: "Viagra opened the door to an honest and uninhibited discussion about issues pertaining to sexual dysfunction, for men, for women, and for couples. I think it has been wonderful."

Others, however, have taken a more jaundiced view of this new sexual revolution, of course -- as one letter, published by the syndicated Ann Landers advice column in US newspapers, made abundantly and poignantly clear: "I am 62 years old and the mother of six grown children and I was thrilled when my 64-year-old husband began to slow down about two years ago. So now what happens? A pill called Viagra is invented and the old goat is back in the saddle. I do love my husband but I believe I have earned a rest. Besides, these pills cost US$10 a piece. Last week he had four."

Freedom Must Win on March 22

2008-02-26T17:12:00.000-08:00

By Li Thian-hok 李天福

On March 22, the Taiwanese should vote for freedom, not servitude. Vote for hope, do not stay away in despair.

Taiwan's presidential race pitting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) against Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has been sharply negative.

With less than one month to voting day on March 22 there has been no substantive debate on the real issues challenging Taiwan's survival as a de facto independent country. What is at stake in the upcoming presidential election is no less than Taiwan's sovereignty and democracy.

The KMT now controls three-quarters of the Legislative Yuan, giving the party virtually unrestrained power to pass any laws it chooses. If Ma is elected president, he will control the Executive Yuan as well, thus giving the KMT the authority to adopt policies that will deliver Taiwan irretrievably into China's grasp.

On March 22, 2006, Ma gave a speech at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a prestigious think tank in Washington. He promised then that if elected, he would negotiate a peace accord with Beijing right away. The prerequisite is, of course, that the Taiwanese government accepts China's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.

Yet a great majority of the Taiwanese people reject Beijing rule.

This is evident in the popular support for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) proposed referendum to apply for UN membership under the name "Taiwan." Nevertheless such a referendum is useful in demonstrating the people's desire for an independent, democratic state, which is recognized as a full and equal member of the international community.

Before such a goal can be realized, however, the Taiwanese people must build the foundation of a viable nation including the following six elements: strong national defense, a self-reliant economy, deft diplomacy, a consensus on national identity, a new constitution and finally, when the time is ripe, a formal declaration of independence.

The first four elements are interrelated and must be achieved before the last two steps become feasible.

To bolster national defense, the defense budget should be increased from 2.85 percent of GDP to 5 percent in two years. Israel enjoys military superiority over its Arab neighbors and strong support from the US. Its defense budget is 9.6 percent of GDP. The conscript's service should be lengthened to 18 months. Modern warfare requires longer training periods to master high-tech weapons and joint force operations. Readiness needs to be improved, for example, by stocking at least one month of strategic oil reserve, ammunition and other war materiel. A civil defense system should be established so as to avoid panic and reduce casualties.

To build a self-reliant economy, the Taiwanese government should encourage the return of businesses from China and diversification into other countries, such as Vietnam. Taiwanese investment in China as a percentage of GDP is about 90 times the equivalent figure for the US and Japan. It is excessive and detrimental to Taiwan's national and economic security.

Good relations with the US are vital to Taiwan's survival as a democratic state. There needs to be better high level communication between the two democratic allies and advanced consultation whenever Taipei decides to take any action which Beijing or Washington may perceive as provocative. After new presidents are in the White House and in Taipei, there could be a new beginning to restore mutual trust and to foster closer political and economic and cooperation. The report just published by the AEI and Armitage International Taiwan Policy Working Group contains many helpful proposals.

To build solid relations with the US, Taiwan must demonstrate by deeds that it is serious about national defense and that it loves freedom more than money.

With the pan-blue camp's super majority in the Legislative Yuan, the agenda proposed above may seem beyond reach. This is where national unity based on allegiance to Taiwan becomes relevant. Except for the old guard elements of the pan-blue parties, a great majority of the public identifies with Taiwan. They also prefer democracy and reject autocracy.

The pan-blue minority that pledges allegiance to China and opposes Taiwanese independence actually works against the welfare of the 1.3 billion Chinese people. China is at a crossroads in history. It is pursuing military aggrandizement and territorial expansion, heading ultimately toward conflict with the US, Japan and the Western democracies. Taiwan's capitulation will accelerate China's confrontation with the West.

Alternatively, China can pursue peaceful development, diverting its vast military expenditures to alleviate poverty, improve the badly degraded environment and provide a social safety net for the masses.

China can embark on political reform, by allowing political opposition, a free press and religious freedom and try to end the endemic official corruption. By becoming a responsible stakeholder in the global community, China can earn respect as a great and humane power. Taiwan can help steer China in this direction by serving as a beacon of freedom to the Chinese people.

Hsieh must address the critical issue of how to maintain Taiwan's fragile "status quo" by outlining a concrete agenda. Only by offering his green base and middle-of-the-road voters a vision of Taiwan's future that is firmly anchored in irreconcilable freedom can Hsieh hope to win the presidency. Time is short. Let us hope Hsieh has managed to convey a sense of crisis to voters and make them understand that the choice is between life with freedom and dignity or servitude under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communist Party in the near future.

Regarding Taiwan's future, Ma asserts that the choice between independence and unification is a false issue. He appears to believe his three noes policy -- no independence, no unification and no war -- will maintain the "status quo" indefinitely.

This is a deceptive slogan.

The People's Liberation Army (PLA) is already capable of launching a multi-pronged assault on Taiwan and occupying the island in a short time, absent US intervention. Beijing has declared that China will resort to nonpeaceful means to annex Taiwan if the island drags its feet in accepting China's terms of surrender. So Ma can guarantee no war only if he is ready to accept unification.

Ma has deeply ingrained anti-democratic instincts as a result of his KMT upbringing.

The 81-day red shirt protest in the fall of 2006 was an attempt to unseat President Chen Shui-bian through the extralegal means of unruly, massive street demonstrations. As mayor of Taipei, Ma not only fanned the flames of the protests, he said at the height of the crisis: "If Chen doesn't resign, he will die an ugly death. The bullet is in the chamber. The gun is cocked. The next step is to pull the trigger."

If Ma wins the presidency, the KMT could install a Singapore-type political system, that is, a one-party autocracy.

Li Thian-hok is a freelance commentator based in Pennsylvania.

But Are They Really Friends of Taiwan?

2008-02-26T17:10:00.000-08:00

By J. Michael Cole 寇謚將

Time and again, a handful of individuals in US academia have accused the Bush administration of either abandoning Taiwan or not doing enough to protect it. Again last week, the same pundits issued a report, Strengthening Freedom in Asia: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for the US-Taiwan Partnership, that at first glance seemed to indicate that Taiwan has friends in high places.

But are they really friends? Is the "freedom" they refer to the universal human right, or is it instead the word cynically used by the Bush administration to justify wars in the Middle East and elsewhere? To put it differently, do these experts really care about a democratic Taiwan, or is their penultimate goal rather the containment of China to ensure that, as envisioned by Paul Wolfowitz in 1992, no power ever manages to rival US hegemony?

For the most part, these "defenders" of Taiwan are hawks at think tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Heritage Foundation, the Project for a New American Century and Armitage International. One thing these organizations have in common is their intimate ties to the US defense establishment. In their view, international security is best served through further militarization -- greater investment in weapons, more reliance on force to solve problems and preemptive military action. All, furthermore, tend to ridicule the UN and have served as proponents of a "Pax Americana."

Case in point was former US Air Force officer and current president of the Project 2049 Institute Mark Stokes' contention, during an AEI forum last week, that Taiwan must tap into its technological base and turn fully private firms into global security companies based on the "US defense supply chain" model. In other words, what was best for Taiwan was a military-industrial complex of the kind that has led to the very military adventurism that, in the opinion of many, has made the world more dangerous for all and would likely result in an arms race with China, out of which no good can come.

We must remember that it was AEI (where Wolfowitz now works after being forced to leave the World Bank) and its likes that orchestrated the invasion of Iraq and the disastrous occupation that followed. It was their reliance on biased intelligence that supported their preconceptions, their support for the long-discredited Ahmed Chalabi and their indifference to the suffering of Iraqis that allowed the occupation to sink into a deadly insurgency. It is also they who are calling for Iran to be next.

These hawks do not really care about democracy; what matters to them, rather, is preserving US hegemony. If that means supporting Taiwan as a hedge -- or an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" -- against China, so be it. But it is hard to imagine these same experts clamoring for Taiwan's democracy absent a China that, at some point in the future, could threaten US primacy.

AEI and its kind are nothing more than poster boys for the US arms industry and the hardliners who seek to contain China. To them, Taiwan provides a convenient cover. Nothing more.

We cannot, however, blame the hawks for getting so much air time. The liberal think tanks in the US, such as the Brookings Institution and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have largely failed to engage the public or to publicize their views to the extent AEI and others have.

Until left-leaning think tanks add their voices to the chorus and come to Taiwan's assistance for principles that are truly based on a belief in the value of democracy, hawks in China and experts the world over will have good reason to doubt that US voices pretending to care for Taiwan are not doing this for cynical, if not more obscure, reasons.

J. Michael Cole is a writer based in Taipei.

12 People Who Are Changing Your Retirement

2008-02-25T23:51:00.000-08:00

By Kelly Greene

These pioneers are shaping the way Americans will live, work and play later in life.

Joseph Coughlin describes his work as "trying to get people to 'age cool.' " More specifically, as director of AgeLab, a research program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is pushing advances in transportation, health care and housing off drawing boards and into older adults' lives.

And he can't do it quickly enough.

"If we don't hurry," he says, "the products being designed now aren't going to be there when the [baby] boomers need them."

Prof. Coughlin is one of hundreds of people across the country whose work, in effect, is shaping the future of retirement. The motives may vary -- educators, entrepreneurs, philanthropists and policy makers are all involved in the effort -- but the goals are much the same: to learn about, and improve the quality of, later life.

Demographics, of course, explain the sense of urgency. Each day, on average, almost 8,000 people in the U.S. turn 60. Just last month, the first of 78 million baby boomers reached age 62 and became eligible for Social Security.

Which "change agents" are having the biggest impact on retirement? We put that question to experts in aging nationwide. From dozens of candidates, we selected the following 12 people. If you want to know what your future might look like -- how Americans will live, work and play in later life -- these individuals are designing some of the answers.

William Bengen
The Numbers Guy

It's the most frequent question, and biggest concern, for many people approaching retirement: How big a nest egg will I need, and how do I make it last?

William Bengen is working on that.

Mr. Bengen, a certified financial planner in El Cajon, Calif., has already achieved what amounts to rock-star status in the retirement-planning business. His pioneering research in the 1990s gave rise to the "4% rule": Withdraw no more than about 4% a year from your nest egg, and it's highly likely that your savings will last 30 years. That finding has already helped to establish budgets and spending patterns for numerous retirees.

Today, Mr. Bengen, age 60, continues to refine his research. In 2006, he introduced a method of withdrawing funds from nest eggs that tailors the 4% rule to individual circumstances. (It's online at www.fpanet.org/journal. Click on "Past Issues & Articles," then on "Past Issues," and go to August 2006.) And now, he is researching, he says, "the possibility that dividend-paying stocks, particularly those that increase dividends over time, might provide a better retirement resource than the S&P 500." As Mr. Bengen explains: "The thesis is that those have at least as high a total return as S&P 500 stocks, and they have lower volatility.... If you have stocks that don't go down as much in the bear markets, you're better off."

Mr. Bengen doesn't see himself as shaping baby boomers' financial future. He says he simply wants to help his 60 or so clients.

"I was starting to get some clients who were planning for retirement," he recalls, "and they were asking me, 'How much can I take out, and how should I set up my investments?' And I couldn't find a thing substantiated by any research."

Joseph Coughlin
Harnessing Technology

In the mid-1990s, before joining MIT, Prof. Coughlin was working for a federal contractor, studying the aging population's potential impact on transportation.

"It was like unwrapping an onion," he remembers. "We hadn't thought about housing, [or] the future of work. And we certainly hadn't thought about transportation."

That epiphany led to the creation, in 2000, of AgeLab, where Prof. Coughlin and his colleagues are designing -- and pushing companies to embrace -- technology that will enhance older adults' daily lives.

One of his favorite breakthroughs is a "personal adviser" that Procter & Gamble Co. has licensed, based on AgeLab research, to help food shoppers identify products that are healthy for them. The device, to be attached by supermarkets to their grocery carts, is like a minicomputer with a scanner. Shoppers insert smart cards that contain their dietary particulars. Then, as they shop, they swipe products past the scanner to get the device's opinion. Let's say you're prehypertensive and scan a box of crackers; after reading the bar code, Prof. Coughlin says, the adviser may suggest trying a different product with a lot less salt.

Eric Dishman
Helping People Stay Home

For no small number of people, aging means losing their independence -- and, eventually, leaving their homes.

Someday, technology being developed by Eric Dishman and his staff at Intel Corp. may help people stay in their homes longer.

Mr. Dishman has focused on ways to assist the elderly since he was a teenager helping care for a grandparent with Alzheimer's disease. Years later, he was working for Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen on a "nursing home of the future," he says, when someone made an observation that helped alter his approach to the matter completely.

"Someone said, 'I think we asked the wrong question,' " he recalls. " 'It's not how can we make the nursing home better through technology, but how can technology keep people independent?' "

Mr. Dishman, 39, is general manager in charge of product research and innovation for Intel's Digital Health Group. Prototypes emerging from his group's offices and labs have a Jetsons-like feel: a carpet with sensors that may reduce the risk of a fall; a "caller ID on steroids," which shows and tells you who is at the front door and when you last spoke; a system that helps people with memory problems cook for themselves.

John Erickson
Helping People Leave Home

In contrast to Mr. Dishman, John Erickson sees a future where millions of Americans leave their homes in later life. And he's preparing your accommodations.

Mr. Erickson, 63, is chairman and chief executive of closely held Erickson Retirement Communities, one of the country's largest developers of continuing-care retirement communities. In a CCRC, residents are guaranteed access to different levels of long-term care as they age.

Starting in Maryland in 1983 with a single facility (a renovated seminary), Mr. Erickson began developing retirement "campuses," where residents, among other activities, can produce their own TV shows. Today, the company has 20 CCRCs with 21,000 residents in 11 states. Mr. Erickson hopes to nearly double that number in five years.

Why should we leave our homes in later life? "Accidents, falls, depression, isolation," Mr. Erickson answers. "That's not what was meant for the last half of retirement."

Beyond housing, Mr. Erickson also may have a hand in shaping what older adults watch on television. In the past two years, he has spent an estimated $100 million building Retirement Living TV, a cable network focused on later life. He also donated $5 million in 2004 to start a professional program at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, that combines management, policy and aging issues.

Charles Feeney
A Life of Purpose

If you find yourself, in your 60s and 70s, immersed in a new career and a new passion -- teaching children to read, for instance, or helping an environmental organization -- you may have Charles Feeney to thank.

Mr. Feeney, 76, is the founding chairman of Atlantic Philanthropies, an international foundation that is committed to disbursing its entire $4 billion endowment by 2020. A large chunk will go to help older adults "live healthier, independent lives with dignity, purpose and meaning," says Brian Hofland, director of Atlantic's international aging program.

The foundation, for instance, has helped fund the Purpose Prize, awards of $100,000 given each year to five "social entrepreneurs" age 60 or older who are tackling some of society's biggest challenges. Civic Ventures, the San Francisco nonprofit that created the Purpose Prize, last year received $10 million from Atlantic Philanthropies in part to stimulate development of "encore careers" for people 50 and older.

Mr. Feeney himself is a bit of a recluse. (He declined to be interviewed for this article.) He doesn't own a house or a car, and when flying, he typically travels coach, says Conor O'Clery, an Irish journalist and biographer of Mr. Feeney. It wasn't until 1997, after Mr. Feeney sold the company he founded (DFS Group, a chain of airport stores), that his sizable charitable efforts became public.

"A lot of what Chuck likes doing is building buildings at universities and hospitals," Mr. O'Clery says. "But more and more, he became concerned with health issues, and I think his interest in aging grew out of that."

Katherine Freund
Staying Mobile

For millions of people, driving at some point will become impractical. How, then, to get to the supermarket, or to friends' homes?

A near-tragedy 20 years ago in the life of Katherine Freund is yielding some answers.

In 1988, Ms. Freund's 3-year-old son was hit by a car and nearly killed. The driver was 84 years old. That event sparked an interest in transportation issues that led, in the mid-1990s, to the development of the Independent Transportation Network.

The program offers rides -- round the clock, seven days a week -- to older adults in the Portland, Maine, area. Fees average $8 a trip. Riders can trade in their cars and get credit for travel; volunteer drivers can bank their hours on the road to use later for themselves or family.

Ms. Freund, 57, serves as president and executive director of ITNAmerica, which has grown into a national organization. While in Portland the program provides nearly 17,000 rides a year to about 1,000 members age 65 and older, ITNAmerica now has nine affiliates, which provided almost 26,000 rides last year, and expects to have 40 affiliates by 2010.

Sheryl Garrett
Spreading Financial Literacy

Sheryl Garrett is on a mission to bring financial planning to the masses.

In the late 1990s, Ms. Garrett, a certified financial planner in Shawnee Mission, Kan., says she came to realize that many middle-class families knew little about managing money and retirement finances -- and couldn't afford to pay for help. Accordingly, instead of tying her fees to commissions or the size of a client's assets (common practices among financial advisers), she decided to charge by the hour.

"It's sort of like going to the dentist," says Ms. Garrett, who is 45. "You don't pay your dentist a retainer -- you pay him for time and expertise."

She soon found herself profiled in financial publications and fielding requests from consumers as far away as Massachusetts and California who wanted to hire her. In response, in July 2000, she launched Garrett Planning Network Inc., which now has almost 300 advisers across the U.S. The certified financial planners pay $7,500 to license the business model. They are required to offer their services exclusively as fiduciaries (meaning they are legally obligated to put their clients' interests first) and on a fee-only basis. Hourly rates are about $175.

Ms. Garrett is also seeking ways to raise financial literacy among the wider public, including possibly through electronic games, a nighttime soap opera or a personal-finance makeover TV show.

Michael Merzenich
Keeping Minds in Shape

Michael Merzenich is working to make "brain exercise" as much a part of your routine in retirement as walking or jogging.

As chief scientific officer at Posit Science Corp., a San Francisco software maker, Dr. Merzenich, age 65, is at the forefront of efforts to improve mental health in later life. His interest in the field dates to the mid-1980s, when he was involved in experiments training animals at the University of California, San Francisco.

"We were watching [the animals'] brains change as they acquired skills and abilities," he remembers. Consequently, he began investigating tools that could promote and measure mental fitness in humans.

His first company, Scientific Learning Corp., started in 1996, created software for children struggling with language problems. Posit Science, which Dr. Merzenich founded in 2003, is focused on older adults. Its first product was designed to improve memory and cognition (thinking and processing speed), mainly through listening exercises; this spring, the company plans to release a new brain-training program focused on vision.

Dr. Merzenich, still a neuroscience professor at UCSF and an inventor with more than 50 patents, is working on exercises that support decision making, fine motor control (playing musical instruments, for example), and gross motor control (to help restore balance).

Bernard Osher
Senior School Master

Returning to school, in some fashion, is high on many people's to-do lists in retirement. Bernard Osher is helping to build the classrooms and programs you might enter.

Mr. Osher helped his family start Golden West Financial Corp. in the 1960s and created a personal foundation in the 1970s. Today, he is pouring nearly $200 million into what has become known as lifelong learning, or college-based education for older adults.

A native of Biddeford, Maine, Mr. Osher had his first significant exposure to the practice in 2000 during a visit to the Fromm Institute for Lifelong Learning at the University of San Francisco. "I came away very impressed," he says, particularly with "the joy of learning" that he witnessed.

Several months later, a trip to the Senior College at the University of Southern Maine in Portland sealed his interest. The Bernard Osher Foundation made a $2.2 million gift to the Maine program in 2001, allowing the university to expand its peer-taught courses and workshops to more than 1,000 students ages 50 and older. Since then, the foundation has donated $73 million to nearly 120 lifelong-learning institutes on university campuses from Maine to Hawaii. Future grants will be used primarily to augment those programs.

John Rother
Advocate for the Aging

John Rother, AARP's policy director, is ultimately responsible for everything that the largest membership group for older Americans advocates at the state and national levels. He is constantly in motion, making about 80 speeches a year around the world and lobbying lawmakers nationwide.

"I've got the best job in Washington," says Mr. Rother, 60, who joined AARP in 1984 after serving as staff director and chief counsel to the Senate Special Committee on Aging.

Health care is his primary focus today. "It's too expensive, and we aren't getting our money's worth," he says. Fixing it "is going to take everything we know how to do -- prevention, better management of chronic care, improving quality, being smarter purchasers as the government and individuals."

In recent years, Mr. Rother has played a role in helping to pass -- or block -- some of the most significant legislation in Congress: the Medicare prescription-drug benefit (not "everything we had hoped it would be, but...certainly better than nothing"); Social Security privatization; and the national do-not-call registry.

John P. Stewart
Urban Planner

John P. Stewart is working on a blueprint for making city services receptive to all of the needs of older Americans -- whether in health care, transportation, safety, employment or continuing education. To date, 16 cities have joined in the effort, including Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago and Atlanta.

"I was really struck by the fact that we needed to change the way we look at aging services," says Mr. Stewart, who for 32 years worked as a Maryland state health and education administrator, and is now executive director of the Commission on Aging and Retirement Education for the city of Baltimore.

More than 25% of the U.S. work force is over 60 and living healthier lives, Mr. Stewart says. "A lot of people are going to have to work longer."

To focus on the question of what a senior-friendly city should look like, Mr. Stewart helped create a nonprofit think tank, the Baltimore City Center for Urban Aging Services and Policy Development. Issues under study include how to help grandparents who are raising their grandchildren; upgrading community senior centers with fitness equipment and personal trainers; and providing counseling to help cope with poverty and social isolation.

"This 'declinist' theory that people get old and should be put away is insane," says Mr. Stewart, 63. "We can be an asset."

William Thomas
Reinventing the Nursing Home

The spark for William Thomas's work came in 1991 while treating a patient in an upstate New York nursing home. "She grabbed my arm, pulled me down over the bed, looked in my eyes and said, 'I'm so lonely,' " he recalls.

To revitalize the place, he opened the doors to children, brought in parakeets, cats and dogs, and plowed up the grounds for a garden. The effort grew into the Eden Alternative, a nonprofit that has helped more than 500 nursing homes across the country shift their focus to their residents' emotional well-being and away from institutional scheduling.

Today, Dr. Thomas is widely regarded as a leader in efforts nationwide to bring humanity to the end of life. In 1999, while touring the country to promote the Eden Alternative's work and a novel about aging, "I realized that America's nursing homes are getting older faster than we are," he says.

Accordingly, he developed the idea of replacing traditional nursing homes with "Green Houses," cozier facilities centered on big kitchens with technology-laden bedrooms and nursing aides who also serve as housekeepers and companions. To date, there are 35 Green House projects; the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is helping fund an expansion of the program.

For his next act, Dr. Thomas, 48, wants to become "the Dr. Spock of aging."

"The boomers are creeping toward elderhood, and I aim to help explain [the] terrain," he says. "The 'new' old age [is] a time of strength and growth and development and engagement."

Ms. Greene is a staff reporter for The Wall Street Journal in Atlanta.

The Parties Are Failing to Deal with a Dark Past

2008-02-20T16:43:00.000-08:00

By Yang Wei-chung 楊偉中, translated by Eddy Chang

Professional students and informants were the products of Taiwan's past authoritarian era. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used to accuse the opposition's young cadres of being professional students for the Chinese Communist Party or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The KMT also accused the young supporters of the opposition movement of disguising revolution with student status, or carrying out such activities by using schools as bases.

During the student movement in the 1980s, both student leaders and supporters like myself were labeled as professional students by school administrations.

Informants, for their part, were spies placed by the KMT within the opposition camp to "push them in, pull them out." They were feared, worried over and hated by opposition activists. Through this fear of informants, the KMT aroused mutual suspicion among activists in order to create internal conflict.

Such authoritarian products did not completely disappear following Taiwan's superficial democratization. They have, in fact, turned into tools of the pan-blue and plan-green camps to influence elections. The former opposition camp repaid the KMT in kind by labeling presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) a professional student. Even more ridiculously, the former authoritarian rulers have called DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) a KMT informant.

Which begs the question: If being an informant is a sin, then how can the government or a party that created informants justify itself and its activities? If the KMT is basically politically and morally upright, what's wrong with being one of its informants?

The issue of professional students and informants has turned the election campaign into a mud-slinging war. More serious issues, such as the control of government violence and promotion of human rights, have not appeared on the parties' to-do list. Certainly, Ma and Hsieh's pasts should be exposed. But even if they really were professional students or informants, the whole thing is merely a selective exposure of the political darkness that characterized the nation's past. From the public's perspective, none of them should avoid the following questions.

For the KMT: If being an informant should be condemned, why does the party avoid discussing the past crimes committed by the intelligence service? Shouldn't the great number of files in the KMT cabinets be made public? Since the KMT claims to be "establishing links to Taiwan," why doesn't it link itself to historical responsibility as well?

The DPP, on the other hand, has always used "transitional justice" and the KMT's dark history as electoral tools. Yet, in its eight years in office, the party never released the intelligence service's records of public surveillance and human rights abuses. A reform of the intelligence apparatus has yet to be made, and government-sponsored violence continues.

To the Ma and Hsieh camps, we could ask whether they are ready to pledge to work with the rival camp no matter who is elected president, if they are prepared to uncover the human rights abuses during the authoritarian era, review past mistakes and seek reconciliation with society through dialogue.

Today, the perpetrators of past crimes have done nothing more than deflect accusations onto others. Some are enjoying great wealth and high positions in the DPP government

Our leaders have not only taken historical tragedies as cheap tools for power struggle, but have also gone down the same road as the KMT by abusing national power, threatening antagonists with media control or even hinting at the imposition of martial law.

Yang Wei-chung is spokesman for the Third Society Party.

Taiwan's Desinicization

2008-02-20T16:39:00.000-08:00

Samuel Yang of Bloomfield Hills, Michigan

In a Feb. 8 article in the Yale Daily News titled "Taiwan's desinicization policy pulls at seams of One China," Xiaochen Su criticized the desinicizing policy of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration as unjustified and an obstacle to peace and cooperation for prosperity across the Taiwan Strait.

The author also cited the recent revision of the primary and secondary school textbooks as additional evidence of desinicization, since the new textbooks emphasized Taiwanese over Chinese history.

Finally, the author argued that the lack of communication across the strait is primarily the responsibility of the Taiwanese government, whose policies is preventing many Taiwanese from visiting China.

Fifty-two responses to the article were posted in the following week. The first one criticized the author as biased. Since China has the political upper hand, the writer argued, it is Beijing that should initiate communication and it should do so without imposing preconditions. The great majority of comments also highlighted the flawed reasoning behind the article, which was interpreted as reflecting the People's Republic of China orthodoxy, if not its propaganda. Many commentators were sympathetic to the DPP and the plights of Taiwanese.

In his comment, Taiwan-based Michael Turton wrote that no ethnic Han emperor had ever ruled Taiwan. Only the Qing Dynasty, a Manchu empire of non-Chinese origin, had ever occupied Taiwan and only did so for a short period of time before ceding it to Japan with some relief.

China's claim that Taiwan is "sacred national territory," therefore, is nothing but a post-World War II invention. When dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) unified China in 1927, nobody in his regime believed that Taiwan was part of China.

Turton also observes that the emergence of a local Taiwan identity predated the DPP. Its seeds, rather, were sown under the Japanese occupation.

The succeeding Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime after World War II reinforced colonialism by resorting to its own oppressive practices. Turton correctly points out that the DPP's "desinicization" policies are aimed strictly at KMT policies that attempted to suppress the local identity by introducing a fictional and idealized version of Chinese culture in Taiwan.

Another writer, named Chris, drew our attention to the presence of deep cultural and social differences between Taiwanese and Chinese populations in spite of ethnic similarities. He said that should China maintain its oppressive and belligerent policies in dealing with Taiwan, the Chinese-Taiwanese identity gap would only widen.

Canadian Politico, meanwhile, suggested that the whole issue was about communism versus freedom and liberty, authoritarianism versus democratic representation and judicial interference versus the rule of law.

Ben wrote that Taiwanese democracy was the best model China could emulate because of the close ethnic relationship that exists between the two nations and that democratic transformation of China would promote peace in Asia and in the entire world. To advance democracy, Taiwan must "Westernize" and desinicize, as did Japan and South Korea. It is interesting to note that the mention of Japan in the comment engendered a wild emotional response from pro-Beijing respondents.

The debate concluded with Eddie G from Sweden, who suggested that supporters of China visit Taiwan and experience Taiwanese culture for themselves. The readers were also reminded that in the court of civilized international opinion, the destiny of Taiwan should be decided by the people who truly love and identify themselves with Taiwan. The reason an undemocratic regime continues to exist in China, the writer argued, was the result of the ignorance Chinese have about the dismal human rights record in their country.

Although the desinicization program received the support of the majority of commentators in the publication, it has been maliciously misrepresented by KMT-controlled media in Taiwan. Thus, the public has been misled into believing that Taiwanese are discriminating against the minority Chinese and that desinicization would intensify discrimination.

Facing a reversal of democratization, Taiwanese must wake up at this critical juncture in their history and use their votes to reject the undemocratic KMT on March 22, lest many find themselves joining the ranks of innumerable exiled Tibetans and Chinese dissidents.

One World, One Farce

2008-02-20T16:36:00.000-08:00

When Chinese Olympic officials said in a statement last week that politics doesn't belong on the sports field we were reminded of words spoken by International Olympic Committee (IOC) vice president Thomas Bach back in 2001: "All the members [of the IOC] are well aware that this election has a political significance and for all the members I have spoken to, human rights is an issue."

Bach thought at the time that the Olympics would have a positive influence on China's human rights record. But for a while it seemed the reverse was happening, as Olympic organizations in some Western countries seemed to be taking a page from China's totalitarian notebook.

The New Zealand Olympic Committee added a clause to athlete contracts a while ago banning them from making political statements or demonstrating while in Beijing -- whether protesting on their own or responding to questions from journalists. It reneged on that position yesterday, however, in a U-turn that opposition Green MP Keith Locke welcomed, saying it would give New Zealand athletes the right to speak freely about what they saw in China.

This development followed on the heels of the British Olympic Association backing down last week from plans to add their own clauses to athlete's contracts limiting free speech.

Olympic Charter Rule 51 forbids any kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda within any Olympic sites, venues or other areas. Protesting outside "designated areas," however, is allowed and this is what the UK and New Zealand Olympic committees were attempting to curb by forcing their athletes to sign the contracts. At stake is the fear that Olympians are going to use Beijing as a venue to criticize China over its human rights abuses in Darfur and Tibet, among a host of other issues.

But it wasn't only organizations that sought to muzzle athletes. Milan Zver, sports minister for Slovenia, told athletes not to raise human rights and other sensitive political issues during the Olympics because "sports are too important to use as a political instrument."

This is really no different than doing business in China: Make any kind of investment you want, but don't discuss any political issues while doing so. In this sense, the Olympics are business as usual.

Jonathan Edwards and Matthew Pinsent, two respected British Olympic champions, said they supported the right of athletes to condemn China's record on human rights and foreign policy. American gold medalist Joey Cheek agrees. Last week the Team Darfur member said that countries choose to stage the Games not just because they like sports but also because they want to showcase their country, people, culture and political systems.

There will be a predictable backlash by athletes complaining that they don't want to feel pressured to answer questions of a political nature posed by the international media. And they shouldn't feel compelled to do so. Athletes are as free to comment on human rights abuses as they are to keep silent.

Meanwhile, ordinary Chinese are appalled that athletes from other countries would want to protest against China, or that a celebrity as famous as Steven Spielberg would boycott the Games -- assuming that they have heard the news at all.

Beijing's theme for the Olympics is "One world, one dream." As countries begin to abandon the "see no evil" policy for athletes, Beijing is about to discover that while we may inhabit one world, the dreams are many.

Taipei Times Editorial, February 21, 2008.

Eight Ways to Save on Engagement Rings

2008-02-19T00:06:00.000-08:00

By Kelli B. Grant of SmartMoney.com

Deciding to get married is the easy part — at least, compared with the expense and effort that shopping for the engagement ring entails.

These sparkly manifestations of committed relationships will set shoppers back an average of $5,795 this year, according to market researcher The Wedding Report. And thanks to a combination of a weak dollar and high consumer demand, which has sent gold and diamond prices skyrocketing, engagement rings are only getting more expensive.

Inflated expectations (mostly on the part of the bride-to-be) about that all-important ring have also pushed prices higher, says Elena Mauer, a senior associate editor at Bridal Guide magazine. Today, most women expect at least a one-carat diamond, while just five years ago a half-carat stone would have sufficed. (Such factors aren't to be ignored: 28% of women say they would turn down a proposal if they didn't like the ring, according to the market research division of Clerical Medical Investment Group, a U.K.-based investment advisor.)

The general spending rule is to expect to pay the equivalent of two months' salary — or at least that's what the jewelry makers advise. "Affordability is different for every couple, so that's just a starting point," explains Jerry Ehrenwald, president of the International Gemological Institute, a nonprofit industry group.

The challenge of putting a price on their priceless love leads many consumers to overspend. But there are plenty of ways to cut costs without sacrificing quality. Here's how:

Reassess the rock

It's impossible to shop for a diamond without knowing the four Cs. But educating yourself (visit the Gemological Institute of America) has the added advantage of helping you figure out where to splurge, and where to save:

Clarity. Look for a stone of VS2 or better, which means none of the inclusions are visible to the naked eye. The stone is a far cry from flawless, concedes Ehrenwald, but who will ever know?

Color. Even a stone on the less-favorable end of the color scale can look stunning in a ring, says Antoinette Matlins, author of "Engagement & Wedding Rings: The Definitive Buying Guide for People in Love." You'll typically notice less color while looking at the stone from the top down anyway (appraisers grade by looking at the side), and the metal of the setting further masks the tones.

Carat. Stones jump in price at the carat mark. Look for so-called light carats — those just a little below, say, a 0.95 instead of a one carat. "Visually, you wouldn't be able to see a difference," says Ehrenwald. Pricewise, you will. At Union Diamond, a loose 0.95-carat stone (ideal cut, F, VVS2) is $8,075. The one-carat equivalent costs $11,294.

Cut. The way a stone is cut largely determines its final appearance, and so has the least wiggle room of any of the four Cs. Get the best cut you can, advises David Levi, owner of David Levi Diamonds in La Jolla, Calif. Trading up yields the most improvement in a diamond's value.

Consider other shapes

Round, brilliant-cut diamonds are the most popular shape for engagement rings — and perhaps not coincidentally, the most expensive per carat, says Matlins. Opt for a significantly less expensive oval, marquis or pear cut, which carry more of the carat weight at the top, thereby appearing larger. At Diamonds.com, you'd pay $8,209 for a round diamond (1.01 carats, F, VS1, very good cut) set in white gold. In comparison, you'd pay $5,717 for the same ring set with a pear-shaped stone of the same attributes; $6,174 for a marquis, or $5,803 for an oval.

Not all shapes offer such a great deal, though. Steer clear of radiant and princess stones if you don't want to stretch your budget. "These shapes, though popular, tend to have a lot of carat weight at the bottom, which can make them look smaller," she says.

Go generic

Tiffany & Co. boasts of its "Lucida" stones, Kay Jewelers showcases the "Leo Diamond" from Leo Schachter Diamonds, and Hearts on Fire's eponymous diamonds are sold by independent jewelers nationwide. Such branded diamonds employ trademarked precision cuts to maximize brilliance. As a result, these stones cost 15% to 20% more than a generic (i.e. unbranded) diamond of the same attributes, says Martin D. Fuller, an independent jewelry appraiser based in McLean, Va. You're paying for the name, not necessarily a better stone. And should that brand lose favor with fickle consumers, there's no added value down the line.

Cut loose

Buying a loose diamond from a wholesaler can save you hundreds of dollars. The savings will more than make up for what you'd pay to have the stone put in a setting. A half-carat stone (G, VS2, very good cut), for example, has an average retail price of $2,238, but could cost as little as $1,272 when purchased through a wholesaler, according to Diamond Review, an independent diamond education and pricing web site. Shenoa & Co. in New York City's famed diamond district has several that fit the bill, ranging in price from $1,140 to $1,458.

Skimp on the setting

No one will be ogling your fiancé's ring for the band, says Mauer. "Focus your spending on the center stone, rather than the setting," she says. At Diamonds.com, a platinum setting with a half-carat in accent diamonds is $2,205, while a simple cathedral setting in platinum is $875. If you have your heart set on a fancy setting, consider swapping pricey platinum for white gold or palladium (a member of the platinum family), which offer a similar look for less than half the price. In 18K white gold, those same Diamonds.com bands would be $1,107 and $490, respectively.

Hone your haggling skills

The markup on engagement rings can easily be 300% over wholesale costs, so there's plenty of wiggle room when it comes to negotiating a lower price, says Matlins. "Mall chain stores have the highest markup, ironically because they're so competitive," she says. "To afford the occasional 50%-off sale, the regular retail price has to be much steeper." Independent jewelers tend to have slimmer profit markups, as well as more leeway to offer discounts. In such a competitive market, many jewelers will give you a deal for buying the whole ring (instead of having them set a loose stone you bought elsewhere), or for agreeing to come back later to purchase wedding bands. Because credit-card merchant fees are high, some stores will even give a 3% discount if you pay by cash instead.

Mine online retailers

Prices can be up to 40% cheaper when you buy online. But you'll have to be more vigilant about which sites you buy from, says Levi. Price compare at several stores, and steer clear of sites where prices are significantly less than others you've seen. That's a good indication you're looking at low-value, lab-enhanced stones or outright fakes, complete with a fraudulent appraisal report.

Buck tradition

Diamonds are still a girl's best friend, serving as the centerpiece stone in 90% of engagement rings, according to The Wedding Report. But there's something to be said for going the nontraditional route. Rings set with colored gemstones are very trendy right now — and very affordable, too, says Mauer. "Colored gems are less expensive [than diamonds], which means you can get a larger, better-quality stone for your budget," she says. At Blue Nile, a three-stone white gold ring set with an oval-cut sapphire (just shy of one carat, good color, no visible flaws) and flanked by two 0.15-carat diamonds goes for $1,575. If you opted for a white diamond of comparable quality instead, that price would get you a 0.30-carat center stone, max. (For a diamond the same size as the sapphire, you'd pay $4,313.) One caveat: Knowing the four Cs of diamonds won't help you here. Our shopping guides for colored pearls can help you figure out what to look for.

Useful article for "later", BTW, what about artificial diamonds?

The Only Winner in Beijing will be Tyranny

2008-02-18T16:19:00.000-08:00

By Nick Cohen of THE OBSERVER, LONDON

Pick any dictatorship at random and chances are you'll find China's malign influence at work there somewhere.

At the opening ceremony of the 2008 Olympics, spectators will watch as athletes from the worst regimes on the planet parade by. Whether they are from dictatorships of the left or right, secular or theocratic, they will have one thing in common: The hosts of the Games that, according to the mission statement, are striving "for a bright future for mankind" will support their oppressors.

The flag of Sudan will flutter. China supplied the weapons that massacred so many in Darfur. As further sweeteners, it added interest-free loans for a new presidential palace and vetoes of mild condemnations of genocide from the UN. In return, China got most of Sudan's oil.

The Burmese athletes will wave to the crowd and look as if they are representing an independent country. In truth, Burma is little more than a Chinese satellite. In return for the weapons to suppress democrats and vetoes at the UN Security Council, the junta sells it gas at discounted rates far below what its wretched citizens have to pay.

There will be no Tibetan contingent, of course. Chinese immigrants are obliterating the identity of the occupied country, which will soon be nothing more than a memory. Athletes from half-starved Zimbabwe, whose senile despot props himself up with the Zimmer frame of Chinese aid, will be there, however.

As will teams from the Iranian mullahocracy, grateful recipients of Chinese missiles and the prison state of North Korea, for whom China is the sole reliable ally.

BEIJING VS BERLIN

With Steven Spielberg citing China's complicity in the Sudan atrocities as his reason for withdrawing as the Olympics' artistic adviser, comparisons with the 20th century will soon be flowing. Will Beijing be like the 1936 Berlin Olympics Hitler used to celebrate Nazism? Or the 1980 Moscow games the US boycotted in protest at the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? I suspect the past won't be a guide because the ideological struggles of the 20th century are over. China's communists are communists in name only. They are not helping dictators because they are comrades who share their ideology. They have no ideology beyond national self-interest and a well-warranted desire to stop the outsiders insisting on standards in Africa or Asia they do not intend to abide by.

Human Rights Watch points out that if, say, Sudan were to change into a peaceful state with a constitutional government, the Chinese would not care as long as the oil still flowed. China's post-communists are like mafiosi. It is not personal, just business.

They are happy to do deals with anyone, as former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recognized when he set himself up to be PR man for so many of the corporations that went on to benefit from the Communist Party's repression of free trade unions.

Campaign groups and governments that want to promote the spread of democracy have been far slower to understand that the emerging power of the 21st century will be every tyrant's first customer and banker of last resort and then adjust their tactics accordingly.

Their failure may be because it is far from clear what fresh tactics are on offer. Take the supporters of Aung San Suu Kyi campaigning for a democratic Burma. Their demonstrations outside Chinese embassies have had no effect.

They persuaded British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to raise Myanmar in meetings with the Chinese leadership, but again Brown was unlikely to have made an impression.

Their other successes look equally fragile. The EU has imposed sanctions, but Western energy companies ask with justice why they should be told not to compete for gas contracts the Chinese will snap up.

More importantly, they are running into a problem familiar to anyone who campaigned against 20th-century dictatorships: where to find allies.

If you are protesting about an aspect of US policy -- Guantanamo Bay or attitudes to global warming -- this is not an issue.

You can ally with and be informed by US activists, journalists, lawyers and opposition politicians. The resources of the civic society of a free country are at your disposal and you can use them to shift US opinion. A subject of the Chinese Communist Party who helps foreign critics put pressure on Beijing risks imprisonment, and none but the bravest do.

PETERING OUT

British Foreign Secretary David Miliband showed he understood the dilemmas of the new century when he gave a lecture in honor of Aung Sang Suu Kyi in Oxford last week. He described how the great wave of democratization, which began with the fall of Franco's dictatorship in the 1970s, moved through South America, the Soviet empire, South Africa and the tyrannies of East Asia, was petering out.

The foreign secretary was undiplomatic enough to continue that the economic success of China had proved that history was not over and he was right. Its combination of communist suppression with market economics is being seen as a viable alternative to liberal freedoms, notably by Putin and his cronies, but also by anti-democratic forces across Asia.

The only justification for the Beijing games is that they will allow connoisseurs of the grotesque to inspect this ghoulish hybrid of the worst of capitalism and the worst of socialism close up. The march of China's bloodstained allies round the stadium will merely be the beginning.

The International Olympic Committee and all the national sports bureaucracies will follow up by instructing athletes not to say a word out of place.

The free-market chief executive officers of Coca-Cola, McDonald's, General Electric and all the other sponsors who have made money out of China will join the communists in insisting that outsiders have no right to criticize. Any Chinese dissident who hasn't been picked up before the world's journalists arrive will face terrifying punishments if he speaks to them.

I know sportsmen and women are exasperated by demands to boycott events they have dreamed of winning for years. Why should they suffer when no business or government is prepared to turn its back on the vast Chinese market? For all that, they still should not go.

The hypocrisy of the 2008 Olympics will make all but the most hard-hearted athletes retch. They will not look back on it not as a high point of their careers, but a nadir.