lisasong.com

Just heard Samuel Huntington passed away. Fitting for a guy who was so inspired by his work but found himself utterly lost afterwards.

SH is one of the few political philosophers who is lucky enough to see his grand predictions proven in his life time (Toffler is a one hit star in comparison). I never read his “The Soldier and the State”, but heard enough about it. His next book, “Political Order in Changing Societies”, shock-and-awed me. Migdal said the same book inspired his generation to refocus on the State. To me, it was the Order part that is still reverberating. His quote of Lipperman at the beginning of the book is one of those things that you can read thousands of different ways into it.

Then comes the “Clash of Civilizations”. Many people tangled over the “Clash” theme but it was the “Civilization” dimension that distinguished Huntington. It is ironic that the author of the proposition against which Huntington argues in the book, Francis Fukuyama, wrote the blurb on the cover. Is it a token of submission or respect? I don’t know.

I am about to read his thesis on immigration. This choice didn’t come naturally but since it is Huntington, I’d read it even if he says he talked to Jesus.

Came upon the news that some convicted British terrorists took comedy writing class in jail. They were about to do a standup show b/f it was called back by the Justice Minister.

I thought about mass forwarding this story but thought the better of it. I love black comedy b/c I am afraid of the “blackness” (fear, death, etc.) and black comedy allows me to be able to laugh at it. It is likely that fans of black comedy are either atheists or very secular, like me.

Anyway, go back to Zia Ul Haq’s sketches, some of them are really funny:

That bag of peanuts is so small, you are starving when you start hijacking

I am so fat–suicide vest won’t zip

My Jihadi Mom–”Why are you still alive?”

Ramadan? More like Ramadon’t

Went to Max and Stephanie’s wedding in Quincy, WA.

Here is what I said on my album log:

Two beautiful people I know got married. Max and Stephanie finally tied the knot on 2008.9.13. It was a lovely day, the ceremony was held in a romantic setting–in a vineyard overlooking the Columbia. Seeing the two being together for three years now, I was nevertheless very moved when they read their wedding vows. For a moment, I regretted any cynism I had in social rituals.

Quincy is a pretty place: the color, the solitude and the scale always remind me of autumn, my favorite season of a year. Song and I both love the place.

The Sunserra resort, however, is a different story: underwhelming buildings, excess grassy lawns and stringent behavioral codes: you shall not curse or you will be fined.

Also, met some interesting people there. One couple from Luxemburg: Maria is German, Jeff Welsh. The lady works at European Commission’s nuclear regulatory advisory agency at Brussel. We chatted a lot about European affairs, e.g. Belgium, Germany’s coal and steel regions.

The conversation led to the topic of legislative process in EU. I was surprised to learn that the binding EU laws were drafted by Ministers from member countries, something I thought would be a big no-no in the States. Maria also asked, “so what’s the legislative process in China?”

The conversation was cut short but I left wonder about the difference between the two unions: EU and China. It is my speculation that the two are quite opposite of each other in one regard at least:

EU is a bunch of sovereign polities with a strong desire to “act together”. China is a bunch of legally unified politiies with a constant tendence to “act different”.

Is this correct?

1. Demographics, social stratification, mobility study
TItle: Was There a REvolution? Kinship and Ineqaulity of the Very Long Term in Laio Ning
By Cameron Campbell (UCLA), James Lee (Michigan)
Based on Liaoning dataset, studied social stratification patterns in late Qing and post Reform contemporary. On going study (from a flyer in 2008, a coloquium missed), tentative conclusion.

Highlights:
Father-son attainment correlation
Kinship/descendent group vs. village
Education as a factor
Unique dataset!
China appeared to be a less aristocratic society then contemporary Europe/America (same authors 2003)

Also mentioned studies: Deng/Treiman (1997), Zhou, Moen and Tuma (1998), Cheng and Dai (1995)

2. Hiking: Bare Mountain
a. Long, arduous drive to trail head: poor road signs, unpaved gravel road full of potholes: need a high clearance vehicle!
b. Eye opening views:
The road largely circle around the back of Mt. Si, which has a stunning silver back don’t see from the highway
Clear-cut forests along the way: the road is largely a mix of logging/utility road
See the clear-cut area after coming out of dark forests felt like stambling upon an African Elephant grave–an eery sight indeed! A unmistakeable sense of death, an immense scene of ruin, an empty feeling of powerlessness and, seeing the new trees planted, a sense of renewal.
A beatiful day with a setting sun in a setting summer.
c. Quiet and cozy trail:
Met very few people, two of them met before on the street or on a different trail! Saw David and Lisa–met just last week in between Tuck and Robin Lakes. Their dogs (Buster and Sunny) gave them away. Both parties were flabbergasted. OMGs echoed all over the valley.
Dense foliage, should be fun during autumn.
d. Conclusion: feels like an newly made friend or an unexpected culinary discovery!

3. NYT article on low ROBC capital
Main Bank of China Is in Need of Capital
A poorly organized article that is undeserving NYT credential. Took me a while to figure out what it says:
PBOC forces commercial banks to turn in their forex reserves and used them to buy treasury and mortgage backed bonds.
As the MBB tanked, the return on those bonds probably wasn’t enough to meet PBOC’s interest obligation to the commercial banks lending those reserves to begin with.
This inbalance drained PBOC’s capital reserve to very low level.
Instead of printing money, PBOC chose to ask for government transfer/handout to sustain liquidity

Things noteworthy:
Different monetary/exchange philosophies b/w PBOC and MoF. PBOC against weak RMB but MoF favors.
PBOC prefer bonds vs. MoF stocks

Standard & Poor’s estimates China’s (mortgage) holdings at $340 billion

By buying United States bonds, the Chinese government has been investing a large chunk of the country’s savings in assets earning just 3 percent annually in dollars. And those low returns turn into real declines of about 10 percent a year after factoring in inflation and the yuan’s appreciation against the dollar.

The gap between what banks are paying on deposits and the rates they are charging ordinary customers to borrow is several percentage points. This amounts to a transfer of wealth from ordinary Chinese savers to the central bank and on to Americans who are selling their debt to the Chinese.

4. Also remembered an earlier NYT article about how China used its foreign reserve to shore up domestic banks:
$200 Billion to Invest, but in China

How the story is developed (confusion, ignorance, cacophony)

The Russian aggression narrative vs. the provoked Russian theory

Which one comes out on top eventually?

The role the Georgian president SAAKASHVILI played: a modern day Croesus? “????????????????” (I was just looking into the history of ?? the day before …)

Russia is going to have to come to terms with the reality it can either integrate with the world or it can be a self-isolated bully. But it can’t be both. And that’s a choice Russia has to have,

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/27/AR2008082703192_pf.html

Need to cover:

1. NYKr article about Chinese nationalism

2. Foreign Affairs catholic univ. prof. “people killing each other” article

3. NYT Belgium Walloons and Flanders article (The most successful failed state)

Other things to write:

1. Yu Dan?

2. Violence and the post violence state, the Negara theme

Collected the following during the paper-writing days, never had the chance to write them down. Here they are:

The New Yorker:

2007/11/12 James Surowiecki: why high compensation structure may undermine Principals’ interests:
1. Hedge fund managers reap large rewards on the upside without a correspondingly punitive downside
2. Stock option grant may “underplay risk is at work in … corporate America”
3. Higher portion of stock options in CEO pay lead to higher stock volatility (data available)

July 7-14, 2008: Adam Kirsch’s story about John Keats:
Very moving recount of a genius whose talent precedes his time. The article reminded me of a rather obscure essay written by Christian Andersen, “The Thorny Road of Honor“. I read the Chinese version (??????) translated by ??? when I was 15 years old. It made my blood boil and led me to a rather literary youth.

Keats’ life seems to be another moving case of redemption: in his death bed, he was bemoaning his lack of achievement,

‘I have left no immortal work behind me—nothing to make my friends proud of my memory—but I have lov’d the principle of beauty in all things, and if I had had time I would have made myself remember’d.’

He dictated his own epitaph, “Here lies one whose name was writ on water”.

His sense of mortality echoes particularly loud in me: “I have an habitual feeling of my real life having past, and that I am leading a posthumous existence.”

It wasn’t an easy read at all. But considering this book: Stanley Plumly “Posthumous Keats” (Norton; $27.95)

Oct 15, Jerome Groopman, Silent Minds:

How patients in vegetative state can still recognize faces, understand sentences and even imagine playing tennis. It is a very heavy read. But was impressed by the research methods.

Nov. Connie Bruck, Rough Rider:

“Liquidity equals value.” Very enlightening. Really solidified my view on the nature of Liquidity.

Foreign Affairs:

Richard Betts, “A Disciplined Defense“:  Many figures available on defense spending, historical comparison and mis-appropriation.

Michael Desch, “Bush and the Generals“: A very spirited critique of the current civilian-military relations. Insightful reading of Huntington’s “The Soldier and the State”. Also in the context: McMaster’s thesis, etc.

Yuliya Tymoshenko, “Containing Russia“: That was an awesome article. Realist arguments at its best. Reminded me of the time of ?????.

In sociology, reflexivity is an act of self-reference where examination or action ‘bends back on’, refers to, and affects the entity instigating the action or examination. In brief, reflexivity refers to circular relationships between cause and effect.  (Wiki entry)

Is this an answer to the criticism of Structualism? Found this through Soros’ investment theory/observation:

Soros argues that such transitions in the fundamentals of the economy are typically marked by disequilibrium rather than equilibrium, and that the conventional economic theory of the market (the ‘efficient market hypothesis‘) does not apply in these situations. Soros has popularized the concepts of dynamic disequilibrium, static disequilibrium, and near-equilibrium conditions.

Reflexivity is based on three main ideas:

1. Reflexivity is best observed under special conditions where investor bias grows and spreads throughout the investment arena. Examples of factors that may give rise to this bias include (a) equity leveraging or (b) the trend-following habits of speculators.
2. Reflexivity appears intermittently since it is most likely to be revealed under certain conditions; i.e., the equilibrium process’s character is best considered in terms of probabilities.
3. Investors’ observation of and participation in the capital markets may at times influence valuations AND fundamental conditions or outcomes.

The last point can be found in “A Demon of Our Own Design“. The first point may be explained by information asymmetry and/or the game theory.

I am a bit confused: if this is so obvious, how come I have never heard of it before?

Just got the news that Barak Obama didn’t like the cover in the upcoming New Yorker magazine.

When I first saw the cartoon, I didn’t get it either. For example, I didn’t understand why Michelle carries an AK-47 over her shoulder? I thought it was a reference to BO’s recent comment after the DC hand gun ruling.

Then I read it was supposed to be a satire. Oh, now I get it … Apparently, this is an instance of “acquired enlightenment”. Now think of it, this is also a good example of how a subject (me) is part of message construction.

By insider’s standard, this cover has all the NYKr trademark elements: cryptic, edgy and funny. But to call it a satire, it’s supposed to be ridiculously off-base. The fact that so many people are so upset–not least the Senator himself–about this cover suggests what it depicts is not that ridiculous to a sufficiently large audience after all.

I was equally confused until I read the accompanying text explaining (a la Elaine in Seinfeld) what it supposed to mean. The fact that I think it is funny and is a satire tells more about me than about the cartoon, however. In other words, it is funny only because I am ready to accept the message (i.e. it is a satire, depicting something irrelevantly funny).

Overall, I love the New Yorker’s covers. If there is a case of too many good thing, this is it. I like so many of them that it is hard to name just a few that is peerless. For example this Halloween lantern in Dick Cheney’s image. There is NO contraversy in this one at all.

Book: The Origins of Totalitarianism

To put it harshly, The Origins of Totalitarianism is more like a political manifesto than a scientific thesis. The locus of Arendt’s work is the Holocaust hence the applicability and reasoning are rather questionable.

Arendt is not just any Jewish survivor. A student and a lover of the preeminent 20th century philosopher, Martin Heidegger, Arendt had rightfully consider herself a member of the upper echelon of the the Western civilization before, suddenly, she was nearly cannibalized by it. Therefore, for Arendt, the most pressing question for her was “what has gone so wrong”?

In pursuit of an answer to this question, Arendt chooses to forgo the cultural and historical peculiarity of the German nation but to extrapolate a general condition which she argues could forster a monsterous extremist regime.

A central character in her definition of Totalitarianism is the movement’s global aspiration. The existence of an ideology aiming for world domination (quotes needed) is a prerequisit. Although such a framework explains well Nazism and Communism, it fails to explain racial or ethnic triggered mass hysteria. Even today, as what used to be unthinkable in America (p 420 a country least exposed to mass psychology) becomes legal (e.g. warrantless surveillance, suspension of habeas corpus, etc.), what the silent majority buy into is not a desire of world domination or salvation but “homeland” security.

Does Totalitarianism exist as one of the “-ism” of the 20th century? Or even, is there a “sin test”–I know it when I see it–of Totalitarianism? If mass murder of the innocent is a inevitable outcome of a Totalitarian regime, as Arendt suggests, the evidence in the late 20th century offers little support–one can hardly say that what happened in Rwanda and Bosnia were perpetrated by totalitarian regimes.

In other words, mass murder cannot happen unless the entire society goes along with a few fanatics. In her book, the chapter on “the classless society” is the one that I can relate to the most: fanaticism is possible when there is a breakdown of social orders (class not in the traditional Marxist sense). But even a chaotic social order is a necessary condition, it is clearly not a sufficient one. For Industrialization and Republicanization (French style) were both traumatic events in history yet not all societies lived through them became radical as did the German, Russian and Chinese nations. In France, the Dreyfus case–as extensively discussed by Arendt–is a case in point: there was clearly a suffocating antisemitic sentiment at the beginning, but it fizzled as quickly as it started (quotes needed).

Therefore, given similar social conditions, given that political and psychological manipulation is innate to human beings as there are demagogues in every historical period in every society, why some nations degerated into totalitarianism, but some did not?

Or, to put the question differently, if there exists a transcendent Totalitarian model, why did it not manifest itself every where, every time? Arendt herself in the 1950 preface says that she wrote the book “out of the conviction that it should be possible to discover the hidden mechanics by which all traditional elements of our political and spiritual world were dissolved into a conglomeration”. Yet even after she seems to have identified many, if not all, of those mechanics, she has yet to convince me that the existence of those mechanics along is enough to breed Totalitarianism.

After the Holocaust, man finds itself still capable of watching massacres unfold in Rwanda and Balkan, and mass hysteria reign in North Korea and, most recently, South Africa. It appears that if history is of any guidance, what Arendt labels as “hidden mechanics” are not that “hidden” compared to something deeper underlying every holocaust.

My observation is that the likelihood of Totalitarianism is negatively related to the liberal tradition of a society. The liberal tradition refers to not only the depth but also the breadth of its societal penatration. In other words, a society that features a clan of intelligentsia and a huge disparity is as illiberal as one that features an undereducated mass.