The White Peril 白禍

Tom Ridge, who comes from a state my pride prevents me from mentioning, is resigning as Secretary of Homeland Security. Obviously, he had a difficult job as head of a new post-9/11 department, but I don't think that excuses the resolute scattershot softness it took under his direction.

30 November 19:19 EST

According to the president of the UN General Assembly (and foreign minister of Gabon), North Korea just wants to get along with everyone else, as always. If only we non-hermit states were more willing to cooperate:

North Korea gave a visiting U.N. official a "very positive message" about resuming stalled six-way talks on its nuclear programs, the South Korean Unification Ministry said Wednesday.

It also quoted Jean Ping, who is president of the U.N. General Assembly, as saying in a meeting with Unification Minister Chung Dong-young that North Korea asked him to tell Washington it wanted to co-exist with the United States.

Ping, who is Gabon's foreign minister, visited Pyongyang and Beijing before coming to Seoul.

"Ping said during the meeting he received a very positive message from North Korea about reopening the six-party talks during his visit to the North," the ministry said.

"North Korea asked him to convey to the United States that it wanted 'coexistence', and he said he plans to convey the message," the ministry added.

Well, that's all right, then. If the DPRK told the UN (which told the ROK) to tell the US that it wants to "coexist" with us, why let a half-century history of reneging on agreements be a stumbling block? Mustn't be uptight, or anything.

Of course, I say that, but in reality, continuing to negotiate is pretty much our only viable option. Invading North Korea (BTW, when did it become the fashion to call the DPRK "the Norks" or [hurl!]"NoKo"? Eight years in Japan has worn down my objections to cute-isms somewhat, but I still have my limits) would be a scintillatingly stupid idea, as would flatly refusing to acknowledge the Pyongyang regime's sovereignty, at least for the time being. Coolly treading a fine line between not indulging the DPRK and not arousing its unpredictable wrath is probably the best we can do right now, but it does get grating the way we all have to pretend to be so very pleased whenever the North Koreans make a diplomatic overture that mimes goodwill and good faith.

24 November 04:08 EST

If you're from New Jersey, Delaware, or Eastern PA, be sure you're sitting down when you read this: Camden, NJ, has been rated the most dangerous city in America, outdistancing such notables as Gary, IN, Detroit, and East St. Louis. Of course, no single ranking is infallible in strict countdown terms, but Camden has long been one of the most egregious dumps on the East Coast. And sadly, unlike cross-river neighbor Philadelphia, it doesn't have many well-maintained middle-class and rich neighborhoods left to keep the crime rate diluted and provide nearby safer places for poor strivers to move up to.

23 November 01:01 EST

Via the Washington Blade, an interesting item about our junior senator here in PA (and for this week, at least, I do mean here in PA. BTW, Specter's conservative primary challenger, Pat Toomey, apparently has an in-state address right here in the same village as my parents. It's not a big village, trust me. Kind of weird). It's from The Post-Gazette in Pittsburgh:

Article I of the U.S. Constitution says, "No person shall be a Senator ... who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." Rick Santorum last won election in November 2000, when he owned the house at 111 Stephens Lane in Penn Hills plus a house in Virginia. Where he was an "inhabitant" at the time only he can say.

He faces re-election in 2006, but if that election were held today, the two-term Republican would be hard-pressed to convince voters that he inhabits a house on Stephens Lane. Sure, he and his wife pay taxes on the house. They also use the address for voter registration, but so do two other people. When a Post-Gazette reporter visited the house last Friday, a young man came to the door and declined to comment. He wasn't Rick Santorum.

It gets worse. The two-bedroom house that the Santorum children called home for education purposes and that gives Mr. and Mrs. Santorum the right to vote in Pennsylvania lacks an occupancy permit. And the property tax break from the homestead exemption claimed by the Santorums on the Penn Hills house is allowed under law only if the dwelling is their "permanent home."

It's a strange case of political turnabout. In his initial House race against Rep. Doug Walgren in 1990, challenger Santorum attacked the incumbent from Mt. Lebanon for buying a house and raising his children in McLean, Va. Now Rick Santorum of Leesburg, Va., is saying that he is and he isn't a resident of Pennsylvania.

It's hard not to sympathize with elected officials who feel torn between being with their families and staying in Washington to do their jobs. Maybe Santorum has changed his mind and wouldn't use the same tactics against someone like Walgren if he were elected today. But rules are rules, and it doesn't seem unfair for Santorum's family to be obligated actually to reside in the state he represents. And in practical terms, Pennsylvania is as close to DC as you can get without being in Maryland or Virginia; he'd be much easier to feel really sorry for if he were from Montana.

22 November 01:47 EST

Via NichiNichi, a link to an article by Rebecca MacKinnon, former CNN Tokyo Bureau Chief. It's actually worth going to the Daily Kos to read it, if you're interested in problems with international journalism. It's long, and most of the points are familiar to those who've listened to reporters complain for the last several years. But she gives the impression of genuinely trying to be fair-minded.

The problem is...well, here's how she begins:

In November 2003, I had the rare opportunity to interview Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for CNN. The interview came at an important time as Japan wrestled with the question of whether to send non-combat Self-Defense Force troops to Iraq. ... The potential dispatch was also considered to be a political gamble for Prime Minister Koizumi - given that public opinion polls showed a majority of Japanese were against sending troops at that time. Thus, not surprisingly, most of my 30-minute interview with Koizumi dealt with the Iraq question. ... He believed that Japan must stand behind the United States against terrorism because this was simply the right thing to do, whatever his critics might say. It was a matter of good versus evil. However, he did have some constructive criticism for Bush: Koizumi hoped that the U.S. would cooperate more closely with the United Nations and do more to build consensus within the international community.

I remember the interview she's talking about. Not word for word, obviously, but she's right that it did get a lot of (justifiable) attention, and that it didn't show Bush in what you'd think of as a bad light. The upshot is that not even one soundbite was aired on CNN USA. Her explanation for why American viewers didn't get to see it:

As it turned out, the morning (according to U.S. East Coast time) that we sent in our Koizumi interview happened to be a very busy "news morning" for the CNN USA morning shows. There was CNN's first interview with Private Jessica Lynch, the young woman who had been captured by Iraqi soldiers during the war and then rescued. There was also an exclusive interview with U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, and updates on the Michael Jackson Trial. I was told that while the International Assignment Desk editors had lobbied CNN USA show producers to include soundbites from Koizumi's interview in their programs, in the end the producers claimed they simply did not have room in their shows that morning to run even one Koizumi soundbite. Later in the day, there was major news in the U.S. about a court ruling on gay marriage, which "blew out" most other stories from the evening programming lineup. Thus Koizumi's words were not heard in the U.S.

(We queers just can't help causing trouble, can we?) As it happens, I agree very much that Koizumi's contribution to the WOT has been underreported in the American press and is probably, as a consequence, undervalued by many Americans who support it. Yes, part of that is that I live in Japan, so Japanese news has more "felt" importance for me than it does for other Americans. But I think I can distinguish between a pronouncement by Koizumi on the WOT and, say, Matsuda Seiko's latest, pathetic Madonna-like lunge back toward the spotlight.

But there are other things to consider. For one thing, CNN has a website. Was the interview posted there? MacKinnon doesn't say. For another, CNN declined to run her interview on that particular day. It's galling that she and Koizumi were dissed in favor of Michael Jackson, but did CNN consistently fail to give play to the fact that Koizumi's support for Bush's policies was given in the face of a lot of public opposition? At the time, I was watching CNN International with the rest of Japan, so I don't know. We sure as hell hear about it here, but then, we would, wouldn't we?


That brings me to another point. MacKinnon writes:

This is the case for viewers everywhere - be they American, Middle Eastern, South African, or Japanese. Based on my interactions with Japanese commercial broadcasters, I know that they are under the same kind of budget pressures and competitive pressures to boost viewership ratings as American broadcasters are. As a result, international news reports focus on what producers believe will keep Japanese audiences watching - which means that like in the U.S., many of the important but "boring" or complicated stories get passed over. Of course, public broadcaster NHK has a different mandate which includes extensive international news coverage. However I have been told by several reporters at NHK that they frequently encounter situations in which producers and assignment editors have been unwilling to contradict majority public opinion or sentiment in Japan. This has been particularly true on stories related to North Korea and to the Japanese citizens who were taken hostage in Iraq earlier this year.

This puts the lie to the Kos poster's take on MacKinnon's piece, which naturally is that news reporting must be removed from profit-seeking. It's an open secret in Japan that the major media have to curry favor with the government. They have to watch themselves around the unelected bureaucrats more than around the members of the Diet, it is true; but to the extent that legislators have pull, they tend to pull in the direction of pleasing their constituents. That's their job, after all. NHK is in that bind even more than other organizations. When you're publicly funded, the government has more direct ways to...you know, incentivize you. What's the solution? MacKinnon has it, in my opinion, though her dark tone indicates that she thinks it's hypothetical rather than actually working:

Before we leap to moral judgments or condemnations, we must be realistic. In truth, it is unrealistic to expect commercially-driven TV news companies to do anything other than to seek profit maximization - while at the same time selling a product that can still be defined as "news" in some way. The search for profit maximization means that these companies will shape their news to fit the tastes and values of the majority of their most lucrative potential audience. Citizens of democracies who want to be well informed must understand this. They cannot expect to be passive consumers of whatever news comes their way from a name-brand news source. They must question, contrast, and compare. They must demand better quality information.

Well, okay, MacKinnon only has part of the solution. The part she doesn't have is: Get national governments out of the business of running their citizens' lives down to every last detail. It's hard to be an informed citizen when understanding how Washington or Tokyo is micromanaging you requires you to be conversant with everything from education theory to the approval processes for pharmaceuticals. I'm all for intellectual curiosity, but I'd prefer to expend a bit less on figuring out which decisions have been premade for me and how. I don't know that shrinking government would make people less interested in junk news about pop stars, but it would certainly decrease the number of government pronouncements competing for airing. The part she has down is that citizens have to demand better information. Sure. But aren't we? The instances MacKinnon points to are genuinely disturbing if taken at face value--and I see no reason not to. But are there major stories that simply aren't available at all for those of us in Western countries with access to cable television, Internet connections, and publications? In the process of dealing with the question of whether the news networks are being honest when they package themselves as balanced news sources, she doesn't seem to register that it's possible to work around them, and that people are doing so. I subscribe to the Nikkei and watch NHK, but I also read three of the other major Japanese newspapers on-line, have CNNj, and can look at link-based blogs like Instapundit if I want to be pointed in the direction of things I might have missed. I mean, I know you all know that, or else you wouldn't be reading this page. But MacKinnon, who makes noises about wanting people to go to a multiplicity of sources for their news, in the end seems to think that CNN's arbitrary selection of what to broadcast is a Major Problem that most people are dangerously unaware of. It's baffling.

I've been thinking a lot about one of my very favorite Virginia Postrel columns, written after the 1998 midterm elections, this past week. See whether you can guess why:

I told you so. The party that hates America will lose. The party that imagines no positive future, offers no "vision thing," will lose. The party that thinks it is better than the American people, that makes large segments of the voting public believe they are its enemy, that convinces people it wants the government to boss them around and destroy the things they love, will lose.

On November 3, that party was Republican. The GOP went down to humiliating defeat, losing close race after close race, plus many that weren't supposed to be close. The party lost its solid grip on the South and collapsed in California. It managed to lose seats in the House, an extraordinary result that even Democratic pundits failed to predict.

And it deserved to lose. Republicans sold out their economic base...and ran as the party of scolds, pork, and gloom. No wonder their voters stayed home.

Sound familiar? The Republicans clearly got the message eventually, which is one of the reasons I think that, despite the hysterical immediate reaction, the Democrats will also. The biggest problem I can see is that the Democrats can't seem to bring themselves to drop the far-left wackos, presumably out of a lingering belief that loudmouthed dissent is somehow in and of itself heroic, populist, and sexy. But they lost big last week, and I hope the shock gets them thinking more pragmatically.

It has to be a parody, but this website is still good for a laugh. If it is serious, my deepest sympathies to our friends to the north (including my best friend from high school, who lives in Toronto). You're going to be joined by some real beauts.

(Found via Dean's World)

*******

Of course it's a parody. Whew! (Click on "Our hidden agenda".)

Mrs. du Toit has a post that recommends against pointing out that you don't fit the stereotype of a Bush voter in a fashion that sounds like, "I'm not like those rubes!"

I see where she's coming from, and I agree that it's wrong. But there's a flipside to what she's talking about that's also worth noting. (I don't think what she wrote is flawed because she didn't note it; it just wasn't the point she was making.)

I frequently find myself defending suburban living, SUV driving, smoking, hunting, and church-going by emphasizing that I don't do any of them myself. It's not because I'm frantically trying to avoid association with church-goers (or smokers, who may actually be even more reviled in the more sanctimonious liberal circles these days).

It's because I really, genuinely think it's great that we all get to make our choices, and I believe there should be room for those I wouldn't make for myself. One of the things I most despise the left for is the way it's turned diversity into a codeword for "full range of races, sexual orientations, and gender identifications + unanimity of ideology." Now those of us who really do like individuality of spirit in others have to avoid a perfectly useful word like the plague, lest our listeners assume we like "diversity" the way Lani Guinier does.

So when standing up for the suburbs, I generally point out that I myself walk or use public transportation to get almost everywhere and live in an energy-efficient apartment (translation: it actually has insulation, which is not something to bank on in Tokyo) in a neighborhood with nearly the population density of Manhattan. My hope is that the message that it's possible to see value in other ways of living than your own will get through.

In an election or more general political debate, there's a further point to be made: when assessing people's beliefs, you have to listen to what they say, not just play actuary and assume you have them figured out. I'm a registered Democrat who lives abroad. I grew up in a county that went for Kerry (Lehigh) in a state that went for Kerry (Pennsylvania). From there I majored in comparative literature at an East Coast private college, moved to New York (briefly) for graduate school, and now work in educational publishing. Unless I missed someone, literally all of my dozen or so close friends from since college voted for Kerry. All this is before we even get to the gay thing.

Based on my statistics, I should have been huddled in the corner weeping and tearing my hair out when Kerry conceded to Bush the other day, not having a victory bath. True, I've always been libertarian/republican in my beliefs and largely registered Democrat because of Pennsylvania primaries. But the fact that the DNC is not reaching me at all is something that you would think might start giving someone somewhere pause. Perhaps "Not everyone who voted for Bush is a social conservative" is not the most generous-minded way of putting it, but the Democrats can't just shunt responsibility for the drubbing they took off on people they weren't interested in courting anyway. That message matters.

Added at 2:50: All right, CNN just did a feature on how distraught New Yorkers are over the election, and something I've heard a bunch of times over the last few days surfaced in the on-the-street interviews. So before I turn in for the night, I would like to add just one thing here: You people who are talking about wanting to move to another country because Bush was reelected? Understandably, a lot of others are going to recommend that you go ahead and leave if you don't like it. But as a proud American living abroad, I hope you stay away. There are quite enough spoiled, whiny, high-handed expats making loud and implausible declarations of solidarity with the world's oppressed and fouling our international reputation with their behavior. You're the last thing we need.

It's yesterday's news, but for the record, Koizumi's reaction to Bush's reelection was the expected one:

The government Thursday welcomed U.S. President George W. Bush's reelection, expecting that his administration's policies toward Iraq and North Korea, both important issues to Japan, would be maintained.

Government officials said they would talk to the second Bush administration over a host of bilateral problems to be tackled with the U.S. government.

During the presidential race, the government was seriously concerned that the result could significantly affect the U.S. policy toward Iraq.

Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry's criticism of Bush's Iraq policy contrasted with Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's strong support.

I noticed that, too.

Bill Hemmer is interviewing the DNC and RNC top men on CNN right now and just asked Terry McAuliffe why the country's still so divided. Think McAuliffe'll turn those lizard eyes on the camera, be honest and say, "Because of flim-flamming jerks like me, Bill!"?

No, of course, he didn't.

Good old Virginia Postrel. Her Bush endorsement has to be my favorite yet, and not just because I'm a fan of hers:

I'm not picking a boyfriend here...or, for that matter, an intellectual mentor. Given the current balance of power in Congress, there are only two things the president can significantly affect: foreign policy and regulatory policy. I prefer Bush to Kerry on both. It's a cold calculation.

Though I supported the war in Iraq, I never thought it would be easy. In fact, I thought things would be worse. It was a high-risk venture, requiring long-term commitment to secure long-term, strategic gains. I wish Bush had warned the public more about the inevitable difficulties, but I do not feel betrayed. I feel no need to lash out at the president.

Voting is an expressive activity, but it need not be emotional. Andrew Sullivan's invocation of "The deep emotional bond so many of us formed with the president back then" does not apply to me. Bush leaves me cold and always has. I never wanted to hang out with him, so I don't take our policy differences personally. I never idolized his leadership, so I don't feel he's failed me. He gets my vote in part because I don't identify with him. He's just a hired hand, and he's better than the alternative.

Bush doesn't leave me cold, though I sure as hell have never had the full-on schoolgirl crush Andrew Sullivan fell into. But I wouldn't have voted for him just because I like him better than Kerry, even if I acknowledge that that certainly makes it easier. Bush hasn't run his administration exactly the way I'd like him to, but most of Kerry's positions are impossible to pin down, and those that are possible to pin down suck. (Well, okay, there's one exception of great meaning to me personally, but it isn't enough to outweigh the rest.)

Added over lunch: Thanks as always to the indefatigable proprietor of Simon World for another link. Those who've stopped by from his place may also be interested in my take on the relative importance of keeping our reputation with the world in mind when voting.

For those who regularly drop by here but don't frequent Simon World, his roundup of Asia-Pacific views of the election is worth checking out--he points you to major regional newspapers and quotes from politicians as well as to bloggers here.

BTW, his "Asia by Blog" feature, which runs Mondays and Thursdays, you probably already know about through Instapundit or Dean Esmay. If not, it's a compilation of what's buzzing on blogs over in these parts. He has a good eye--and I'd think so even if he didn't link me regularly. Really. If the post-election falloff in domestic strife (yes, that's what I'm hoping for) leaves you with a news vacuum, be sure to visit him on Thursday for the next installment. We've got the PRC, we've got the DPRK, we've got Indonesia--there's always something cooking on this side of the world.