Green Dam Breaks

It now looks like the Chinese government has fully backed down in the face of international pressure to not use their Green Dam Youth Escort spyware. Now instead of being mandatory for all new computers sold in China, it will be optional. Given how bad this episode, especially now that they’ve caved, this makes the Chinese government look internally, I’ll be curious to find out how widespread this program is. I’d expect there still be heavy pressure to have it installed so the ruling Chinese Communist Party doesn’t lose any more face than they already have in this incident.

On an unrelated note, the British press is able to use a lot of words that you won’t find in the mainstream American press (especially given that this article is ostensible about a pornography censorship tool).

No Lone Wolves

Dr. Slammy of Scholars & Rogues has what I think is a very important piece that urges the media to stop describing acts of domestic terror as being perpetrated by “lone wolves.” Doing so circumscribes the problem of right wing extremism within the physical agent conducting these assassinations. Dr. Slammy points out that this phrase as used “asks us to accept that these people have no context, no community, no ideological fellow-travelers whipping them on. Which is bunk.” This is perpetuated by the media, leading to an increased lack of understanding of the dangers facing America:

In the end, the reader comes away with the idea that these killers are, as a matter of fact, solitary agents. Both agencies lend credence to this misinformation by failing to challenge the underlying factual inaccuracy, and in doing so they inadvertently serve the cause of the “leaderless resistance.“ When our most reliable news institutions say that these incidents are isolated, that they’re not part of a larger movement, that there’s no collective organization behind the attacks, it provides cover for a thriving, blood-thirsty community of wolves.

The simple point is that America has a serious, growing problem with right wing extremists turning to violence. They are not acting alone and continued assertions of such in the press is tantamount to causing the public to ignore a present danger.

More Schiff Failing

I don’t have any real fondness for Stu Rothenberg. I think he leans very right and tends to favor Conventional Wisdom over actual analysis. But sometimes he does well and this write-up on his interview with Republican Peter Schiff is just devastating. There’s really too much that’s worth noting, but the whole piece stands out as a rebuttal to Schiff’s anti-voting, anti-civics, anti-accountability views on government.

Schiff is the first candidate I’ve ever interviewed who proudly says he can’t recall the last time he voted. “I’ve never seen a real reason to vote,” he says without hesitation, adding that he registered to vote only recently in Connecticut. Apparently, he’s never heard of the concept of civic duty or considered the meaning of 200 years of American history.

Not surprisingly, he is also the first candidate I’ve ever interviewed who brags that he can raise most of his money out of state and can win by bringing supporters from around the country into Connecticut to campaign for him. (That certainly worked for former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean in the Iowa Democratic caucuses, didn’t it?)

Finally, Schiff is the only major party hopeful I’ve ever interviewed who said there is no difference — absolutely no difference — between Republicans and Democrats, between President Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Rothenberg just doesn’t buy that Connecticut voters, especially Connecticut Republicans, will find his Ron Paul brand of militant libertarianism appealing. This is a big hurdle for Schiff to overcome, but he will have an army of non-nutmeg Paulites to stand by him and send their donations into Connecticut.

He’s well-dressed and articulate. He’s also adept at talking about the nation’s economic programs, and he has logged a good deal of time on cable’s business programming. But being an entertaining guest on CNBC doesn’t automatically translate to being a serious candidate for the U.S. Senate.

If and when Schiff focuses on what he’d do to get the American economy out of the ditch, he’ll scare the living daylights out of state voters, who are more concerned with their jobs and government services than with Austrian economics. Simply put, a majority of Connecticut Republicans are not ready for the second coming of Ron Paul.

If all of that isn’t hard-hitting enough, Rothenberg’s closing is simply brutal:

For a man who supposedly makes decisions on the basis of data and analysis, Schiff seemed to lack any empirical evidence that he could win a Senate race, let alone a primary. Maybe that’s because he’d really rather appear on the Daily Show or spout off in national publications than do what is necessary to win a Senate seat.

Of course, it’s worth noting that Schiff has been the subject of an online Paulite draft movement and is now promoting that effort (and his new book) in the national and DC press. I haven’t seen or heard a single report of Schiff traveling Connecticut to talk to voters about the issues they care about or how he will serve Connecticut if he has the privilege to be elected to serve in the US Senate.

Rothenberg’s piece is just the latest entry into the quickly-growing queue of reports about Schiff the Non-Voter and how he just isn’t going to be a viable candidate for Connecticut’s Senate seat this cycle.

China Moving Ahead with Spyware

Not that it’s surprising, but after a lot of public debate and international attention to their Green Dam-Youth Escort spyware program, the Chinese government will still press forward and require it be installed on every new computer sold after July 1st. The Chinese Communist Party has their heart set on a new toy that will help them monitor what their citizenry are reading, saying and doing online – and apparently they won’t be dissuaded.

Rather than agreeing to scrap the software altogether, the Chinese government has responded to the technical criticisms by ordering that the potential security breaches be eliminated.

“The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology told us to make the software safer as soon as a series of security vulnerabilities were found,” Zhang Chenmin, the general manager of Jinhui Computer System Engineering, which helped design the software, told China Daily.

To say that the concern of critics was that non-governmental hackers could break into the system and see what people are doing is to misstate and fail to address legitimate concerns about this software. It isn’t just that it was poorly designed and had security holes, it’s that it fundamentally enables the government to do more than the stated purpose. It’s a tool for the Chinese government to spy on their citizens and control what they see and do. The extent to which this particular program aides those goals is subsidiary to the massive existing structures the Chinese government has already put in place to block the free flow of ideas in China and to monitor what people are saying to each other. To that end, it’s somewhat irrelevant if the software updates to this particular program do make it harder for the program to reach beyond pornography. The addition to the Chinese government’s censorship system is smaller than it might have been otherwise, but the system itself remains large and fundamentally totalitarian in nature.

NYT Takes A Mulligan

Or at least it appears that after their god-awful, factually inaccurate product of failed due diligence editorial, the Times is giving space for columnist Gail Collins to make up for their bad behavior. Her Saturday column was a great run-down of the yeoman’s work Chris Dodd has done thus far in the Obama administration, essentially presenting the case that Dodd has been the peoples’ most active and involved legislator thus far this Congress. Collins’ look at Dodd and AIG is one of the few times I’ve seen a traditional journalist recognize how unwarranted the attacks against him were:

During the bank bailouts, he was blamed for protecting the A.I.G. executives from bonus payment caps. This is deeply ironic since Dodd was one of the very few people in the Senate to show any interest whatsoever in salary caps until the cameras came on and our elected representatives began frothing with rage and demanding to be allowed to beat leaders of the financial industry with brooms and sticks.

Dodd’s role was complicated, but at bottom, the A.I.G. charge was so unfair that we can only hope he did something really, really bad at some previous point in his career and got away with it, thus balancing the scales of justice.

Collins goes on to look at what Dodd is busy doing during a tough campaign season:

While Dodd was busy watering down bankruptcy laws, he was also establishing himself as a leading progressive voice on a raft of other issues.

He resisted the siren call of Republican tax cuts in the Reagan and Bush administration. He was a persistent champion of quality early child care — an issue whose importance is matched only by its complete and total lack of vote-getting or donation-collecting potential. He authored the Family and Medical Leave Act. And he developed a close working relationship with his ailing friend Ted Kennedy, who designated Dodd as his surrogate on the health care legislation. In Kennedy’s absence, there is really no other Democrat in the Senate with so much ability to reach across the aisle and negotiate with Republicans while still keeping his eyes on the prize.

Like most seasoned political animals, Dodd’s response to his plummeting polls is to Do Stuff. Run around your home state. (He had a listening tour!) Make a splash in Washington. (Four bill-signing ceremonies in four months!) Find new ways to reach out to the masses. (Oh, Lord! He’s Twittering.)

Meanwhile, by his estimate, he spent 30 hours this week alone talking with Republican senators about the health care bill. On the phone, he sounded exhausted, but you can tell he sort of loves it. “It’s what I do,” he said.

Actually Collins is flat-out wrong in her first clause: Dodd is one of the strongest advocates for protecting strong bankruptcy laws in the US Senate. During the presidential campaign eRiposte of The Left Coaster did an intensive analysis of all the Senate Dem candidates records on bankruptcy reform legislation in 2000, 2001, and 2005. Concluding a ranking of Dodd, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama

Senator Chris Dodd has the best, and a near-perfect, voting record on Bankruptcy legislation. He has been consistently and strongly progressive on the topic of Bankruptcy “reform” at least since 2000.

Also, it’s a small point of pride that Chris Dodd has been using Twitter since 2007 – one of the first politicians to do so at the federal level.

But beyond these two quibbles, Collins really lays out the hard work Dodd is doing. There are a lot of bombs being thrown at him now in an effort to make one of the Senate’s liberal lions seem vulnerable at home. But the political barbs just don’t match the reality of what Dodd has actually done and is continuing to do in his role as one of the Senate’s most effective legislators.

Unfortunately while Collins’ column shows Times’ readers the great work Dodd is doing, it doesn’t undo the crap that the Times threw at Dodd earlier this week. But at least it’s an improvement…and a sign that someone at the Times is still paying to what Chris Dodd is actually doing and not merely the attack press releases Rob Simmons and the Connecticut GOP are putting out on a near-daily basis.

Idiocy: Glenn Reynolds Edition

Glenn Reynolds is probably the biggest anti-Chris Dodd blogger out there, so it’s no shock that he’s lobbing every grenade he can at Dodd. Unfortunately, instead of throwing grenades, Reynolds sometimes seems content to grab the back side of the underwear he’s currently wearing, lean back, and pitch the waistband forward with all his might. To wit, Reynolds thinks he’s somehow hitting Dodd’s credibility on healthcare reform legislation by posting a story about Jackie Clegg Dodd serving on the board of four pharmaceutical companies. Reynolds provides this bit of “Ah-ha!” commentary:

It’s like he was trying to keep this under the radar until after the bill was done.

In a clear sign that Reynolds hadn’t read the paragraph he just quoted from the AP, the article actually says:

Dodd, who as Senate Banking Committee chairman also has been an architect of the nation’s financial industry and housing rescue plans, did not file a new disclosure report outlining his personal finances as most other senators did in May. The Senate was releasing those reports Friday. Dodd sought a 90-day extension to file his report covering last year, giving him until mid-August to submit his report, but released his report Friday to The Associated Press.

Dodd could have actually kept these disclosures “under the radar until after the bill was done” if he wanted to. He had until mid-August, a timeframe that would have certainly included the introduction of the bill he’s working on in the HELP Committee. Except, you know, Dodd didn’t. As Reynolds quotes.

For those who were wondering, Glenn Reynolds has just provided us with the definition of what it means to be hoisted by one’s own petard.

Peter Schiff, Savvy Motivator

Peter Schiff, a venture capitalist and top Ron Paul economic adviser, has been making waves about running as a Republican for the Connecticut Senate seat currently occupied by Chris Dodd. Schiff is something of a Paulite internet sensation. His YouTube videos have received millions of views and he’s already the subject of a long-running online draft campaign (on a volunteer built site with many of the technological hallmarks of the Ron Paul presidential campaign). Schiff’s candidacy would likely receive massive small-dollar support from Ron Paul fans nationwide who would apparently seek to turn the Connecticut Senate seat into some sort of libertarian paradise. All of this makes Schiff look like a very threatening candidate, both to Republican favorites like former Congressman Rob Simmons and state senator Sam Caligiuri, and to Democrat Chris Dodd. That is, until Schiff starts opening his mouth.

In subsequent mainstream press stories yesterday, Schiff uttered bone-chillingly stupid comments that will surely turn off both the Republican Party’s primary voters and voters in the general election. First, in Roll Call, Schiff talked about his proud history of…not voting.

In an interview with Roll Call, Schiff said he was new to politics and only recently registered as a Republican in Weston.

“I don’t know when the last time I voted was,” Schiff said. “You can’t blame me for any of the politicians. I didn’t vote for them.”

This just isn’t how it works. Failing to vote doesn’t keep a citizen from being responsible for the consequences of elections, it makes them culpable. Not participating in elections is not something to be proud of at a time when Schiff has individually and publicly expressed such displeasure with the governance of officials whose elections he failed to do anything about. Rather, if Schiff the Non-Voter has a problem with politicians, he is to blame by embracing political passivism and do-nothingism.

Schiff the Non-Voter later echoed similar sentiments to NRSC Chair John Cornyn, according to Politics Magazine.

“I’ve barely ever voted for anybody running for office. Living in Connecticut, even if I go to the polls and vote for a Republican, a Republican’s not going to win. Even if he could win, in the grand scheme of things he’s not going to make a difference.”

Actually, according to Roll Call Peter Schiff is a registered voter in Weston, Connecticut. According to Wikipedia, Schiff lives in Darien. Both Weston and Darien in Connecticut’s 4th Congressional District, which until this Congressional term was held by Republican Christopher Shays. Shays served in office from 1987 to 2009, so Schiff would have had ample opportunity to cast a winning vote for a Republican in that time frame. Additionally, Darien is one of Connecticut’s most heavily Republican towns and Weston currently has a Republican First Selectman. Connecticut has also had Republican governors uninterrupted for the last fourteen years.

While Schiff was refusing to vote for winning Republican candidates in Connecticut, he was also bashing the Republican Party in Connecticut on whole:

“How are they going to energize anybody?” asks Peter Schiff, a Connecticut-based stock broker. “If a regular Republican runs in Connecticut, why is anybody anywhere else going to give a damn? I don’t even know why anyone in Connecticut would care. What’s he going to change?”

Obviously this is a strong play by Schiff to win Republican votes by insulting voters choices for leadership (as well as the voters’ gall for choosing to vote at all, an idea clearly offensive to Schiff).

To recap, Schiff has failed to vote, even for long-time winning Republican candidates, because he mistakenly thinks Republicans can’t get elected and no one cares about those who do.  He thinks not voting is a virtue in that it excludes him from culpability for the consequences of actions officials have taken while governin, even though this runs counter to middle school level civics education. Between a lack of knowledge of how citizenry is supposed to work and a lack of elementary knowledge of Connecticut’s recent political history, Peter Schiff looks like an uneducated, arrogant crank who is not ready to be a viable candidate for Senate in Connecticut. The strong support he receives from Ron Paulites from outside of Connecticut may make him a financial force to be reckoned with in the Republican primary, but I can’t see how Connecticut voters will appreciate being treated like a bunch of rubes as Schiff exposes his ignorance about the state to them while asking for their vote.

Rush Is Their Leader

Mike Stark has posted on his new blog, The Crooked Dope, an audio clip of his call in to Joe Scarborough’s radio show. In the clip, Stark takes down the GOP complaints that Rush Limbaugh is subject to a standard that liberal comedians (why these two are comparable is beyond me) aren’t held to. Mike makes clear that the reason Limbaugh is subject of criticism is because he is the leader of the Republican party, whereas no Democratic politicians turn to Jon Stewart or David Letterman to get pointers on how to vote or how to act towards the opposition. Go listen to the clip on The Crooked Dope.

The Tibet Question

Rebecca Novick at the Huffington Post has an excellent write-up of a report by four Chinese academics on the Tibet question. The report, translated by the International Campaign for Tibet, goes into great detail looking at the causes of unrest in Tibet as they exist separate from Chinese government and state-run media propaganda. The spring 2008 protests were the impetus for the report, but the team of researchers look at larger underlying social and economic conditions that have lead to unrest in Tibet.

The analysis of how Tibetans were being treated by the Chinese government during the spring of 2008 seems sensible and the reports drive to look past propaganda about the protests being caused by the Dalai Lama to understand actual causes of last year’s Tibetan national uprising seems spot on:

The researchers cite “major errors in government policy,” in the wake of the protests, including the “over-propagandizing of violence,” that encouraged “racist sentiment” towards Tibetans. “The excessive response of governments all over Tibet was to regard every tree and blade of grass as a potential enemy soldier.” This apparently left Tibetans feeling even more alienated and relations in Han/Tibetan communities more strained. “The fascination that Han citizens have expressed toward Tibetan culture changed to fear and hatred of the Tibetan masses, and Tibetans were rendered as a people incapable of gratitude.”

The research panel concluded that the “3.14 incident” was caused by “the confluence of many factors…which cannot be simply reduced to splittist violence,” the term “splittist” being a reference to those in the Tibetan freedom movement who want a completely independent Tibet. The Chinese government include the Dalai Lama in this category despite his repeated statements that he only wishes for Tibet’s “genuine autonomy” within China. The authors don’t completely rule out influence from Tibetan exile groups or the Dalai Lama, but do not support the Chinese government’s claim that he orchestrated the protests, and conclude that the unrest “could not have been created solely by external factors.”

Novick rightly highlights a  line that should give anyone in the Chinese government serious pause about the efficacy of their policy positions on Tibet.

One line in the report holds the key to any serious analysis of last year’s events in Tibet. “The notion that appears impossible to understand is the implication that reasonable demands were being vented, and this is precisely what we need to understand and reflect upon.”

Unfortunately, the Chinese government’s actions during the Olympics in shutting down Tibet and again blocking all access to foreigners, tourists, and journalists this winter and early spring shows that they are uninterested in learning about why their failed policies have lead to unrest in Tibet. Instead,  the Chinese government only sees the continuing desire for freedom — held by Tibetans for more than 50 years of occupation — as a disease to be crushed. What is missed is that these uprising, these consistent acts of protest are simply the symptom of the Tibetan spirit remaining free and uncrushed by more than half a century of Chinese military rule and economic exploitation.

The report is truly a rare moment of honest intellectual analysis being done within China about how their government has handled Tibet. I hold out hopes that reformers within the Chinese government and ruling Communist Party will read this with open eyes and begin to recognize that when it comes to Tibet, nothing other than an about-face in their policy course will lead to improved conditions. Of course, even reformers should not delude themselves that providing more positive social and economic policies that benefit Tibetans in Tibet will be sufficient to end the Tibetan desire for freedom and independence in their land. A change in policy and attitudes on these issue will reduce human suffering and should thus rightly be pursued. But progressive social and economic policies are no stand in for Tibetans having their birth right…the human right of self-determination.

Where’s the Due Diligence, NYT?

The editorial page of the New York Times today attacked Senator Chris Dodd for his receipt of fundraising contributions from pay day lenders and, according to them, subsequently not acting to reform pay day lending laws to cap interest rates.  They write:

Forget what it looked like, this was a private fund-raiser by Mr. Johnson for his friend Mr. Dodd, not payday lenders wooing a senator whose committee was considering a bill that could seriously cramp their business.

That bill, sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois, caps interest rates on consumer loans at 36 percent. That’s the reasonable limit that Congress placed on loans to members of the armed forces.

Mr. Dodd, who was recently praised after Congress passed a bill limiting abuses by credit-card companies, should follow the same crusading impulse to go after the egregious exploitation of payday loans. He should avoid even the slightest hint that he is cozying up to it.

Unfortunately, the Times has gone off more than half-cocked.  Dodd not only supports reforming pay day lending and has voted for it repeatedly in the past, but he’s a cosponsor of the Durbin legislation in question.

On May 13th, Dodd voted was one of only 33 senators to vote in favor of Bernie Saunders amendment to provide even stricter interest rate caps than the Durbin legislation.

On May 23rd, the Hartford Courant reported:

In a conference call with reporters Friday, Dodd said there are still two major issues that remain unfinished business: a cap on interest rates and limits on fees that merchants pay when a customer uses a credit card for a purchase.

You can go back in history and see many other votes and other statements that have shown Chris Dodd’s commitment to protecting worker Americans’ interests when it comes to usurious lending. But what is most stunning is that the Times ran an editorial criticizing Dodd for being so close to pay day lenders that he wouldn’t support legislation capping their interest rates when he is a cosponsor of the legislation in question.

s500cosponsors

I don’t know if the NY Times knew that Dodd had cosponsored this legislation when they chose to run their op-ed. I hope that it’s the case that they simply failed to do their basic fact checking before running it. Because if the Times knew that Dodd had cosponsored this legislation yesterday, it would mean that they ran an op-ed attacking a senator for giving undue influence to contributors and not sticking up for working Americans when they knew that he in fact was doing the exact opposite of what his contributors want and is standing up for working Americans.

It’s quite common elected officials to receive campaign contributions from corporations and industries that they’re trying to regulate. The act of them receiving this money, while not always savory, does not in itself constitute any form of obligation for the official to act on the corporation or industry’s behalf. In fact, it can be an opportunity for a public servant to show that they are beholden to no one other than the interests of the voting public.

That’s precisely what Chris Dodd has done when it comes to any number of financial players who have contributed to his campaigns over the years. From banks to credit card companies to the insurance industry and now, especially, pay day lenders, Dodd has held true to his Democratic values of protecting the interests of working Americans and not been swayed by campaign lucre.

What’s so unfortunate is that the New York Times is unwilling or incapable of identifying the clear difference  between the people who give Dodd money and the interests on whose behalf Dodd legislates. The two aren’t even in the same ballpark.

The simple fact is that the New York Times fundamentally missed the mark in their editorial attacking Chris Dodd. At best the attack comes from a failure to do their due diligence before publishing. At worst, the Times has maliciously attacked a man for doing precisely what they say he should be doing.

Update:

Tparty at My Left Nutmeg adds more:

As both Chair of the Banking Committee and a  vulnerable incumbent up for re-election, Dodd will continue to be a huge target for those looking to influence politics and/or policy on all sides, and sorting through competing arguments and knocking down spurious claims is apparently going to be a challenge for a traditional media still largely uninterested in doing that type of real work. But at the very least, Dodd deserves accurate reporting and praise when he does the right thing, even if that means re-writing an editorial before it goes to press – or printing a correction after it does.

I’d have to imagine Senator Dodd is pushing for a correction to the editorial. Who knows if they’ll get it? But unfortunately more people will read this editorial than will read the correction, even if it is forthcoming.