The Continuing Culture War

Roy Edroso is right in his critique of Frank Rich’s latest column on the death of the culture war and his example of the “Going Galt movement” is perfect in showing the continued prevalence of the culture war festering in the right wing blogosphere. While the left has developed an online community that has a balance between outside critique and inside influence, the right has largely developed as an outrage machine. The question isn’t whether the main voices of the right are voices from the culture war, as it was largely during the 1990s, but are the vocal parts of the Republican base the remaining proponents of culture war politics? I think the answer clearly is yes. That it these people are somewhat less focused on stem cells is not a sufficient cause to dismiss the culture war as a major area for Republican organizing.

Nobel Laureates for Tibet

Nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates, celebrities, and tens of thousands of people have signed a letter by Archbishop Desmond Tutu to Chinese Communist Party Chairman Hu Jintao, voicing concern for human rights and freedom in Tibet.

The Nobel laureates, activists and Hollywood stars have signed a letter from Archbishop Desmond Tutu expressing concern at the deterioration of the human rights situation in Tibet, and the apparent breakdown of talks between the Chinese government and emissaries of the Dalai Lama.

The letter, published on TheCommunity.com, an Internet site for Nobel peace laureates that promotes peace and human rights, was opened to the public for signature on Friday.

Mary Wald, chairman of the site, said when 100,000 people sign the letter it will be hand-delivered to Chinese President Hu Jintao and others.

“This is the time for a massive outpouring of support for the Dalai Lama,” Wald said. “He is making some of the strongest statements he has ever made, because the situation for the Tibetans it that critical.”

Nobel peace laureates Elie Wiesel, John Hume, David Trimble, Jody Williams, F.W. de Klerk, Mairead Maguire, Betty Williams and Adolfo Perez Esquivel signed the letter along with about 40 celebrities and rights activists including Ford, Paltrow, Peter Gabriel, Richard Gere, Mia Farrow, Maria Bello, Adam Yauch of the Beastie Boys, Ashley Judd, supermodels Christy Turlington and Naomi Campell and Queen Noor of Jordan.

The letter is posted on TheCommunity.com and you can sign it yourself. Here’s an excerpt:

“We the undersigned Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, human rights leaders and concerned individuals wish to express our concern at the current deterioration of the human rights situation in Tibet, and the apparent breakdown of the talks between the Chinese government and emissaries of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. We are dismayed at the lack of any concrete progress toward resolving the conflict over the autonomy and religious freedom of the Tibetan people, and urge all parties involved to redouble their effort to achieve this vital goal.

“To our dear friend His Holiness the Dalai Lama, we say: we stand with you. You define non-violence and compassion and goodness. Clearly China does not know you. It is our sincere hope that they will. We call on China’s government to know His Holiness the Dalai Lama, as we and so many others have come to know him during the long decades he has spent in exile.

Educating on Employee Free Choice, Part 22

Christopher Beam of Slate has one of the best run-downs of the Big Lie used by the opponents of Employee Free Choice, namely the “secret ballot” question. It’s too long and thorough to lend itself to quoting, so I recommend you read Beam’s piece. But this passage is certainly critical:

Even though employers are free to recognize a union without an election, in practice they almost always request an election: Why recognize a union before they have to? Requesting an election also gives them more time to lobby against unionization.

The essential change of the EFCA would be to allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election. If at least half of the work force signed cards saying it wanted a union, there would be a union—without the rigmarole of a full-blown election.

China Searching House to House in Lhasa

This is a truly startling revelation about how hard the Chinese government is working to ensure that no news about what they are doing inside Tibet escapes to the outside world. Both the South China Morning Post (subscription) and The Telegraph are reporting that Chinese forces are searching every single house, hotel, and boarding house in Lhasa for non-Tibetans and even Tibetans who live outside of Lhasa. SCMP writes:

Security forces in Lhasa and other Tibetan-populated areas launched a search for “suspicious characters” amid a major security clampdown in the Himalayan region in a pre-emptive bid to prevent any unrest during sensitive anniversaries.

Tensions were high yesterday on the streets of the capital of the Tibet Autonomous Region as armed police continued their door-to-door checks for overseas visitors or journalists. Not a single hotel, guesthouse or local home in the city was spared.

Those whose ID cards were not issued by the regional government were taken in for further interrogation and even faced detention, hotel and restaurant owners in Lhasa said.

Apart from people from Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan, Tibetans from outside Lhasa and other parts of the Himalayan region were also targeted.

…

All Tibetan areas in Sichuan and Qinghai are off-limits to overseas tourists and journalists this week, with communications cut off in the most volatile areas, local travel agencies and other sources said.

In Lhasa, major monasteries have been sealed and armed police patrol the city day and night.

Hundreds of big and small hotels were strictly required to report suspicious figures. Local people are required to produce their residence permits in frequent security checks.

Late-night road blocks were seen in downtown Lhasa. Passengers in taxis and pedestrians carrying bags were subject to identity checks by public security officers or armed police.

Shops and entertainment venues were ordered to shut as early as 10pm.

A resident of Bakhor Street, one of the most sensitive areas near the prestigious Jokhang Monastery, said security forces had been checking the rooftops of every building.

Tibet is a prison that the world is not allowed in. China does not anyone to know what they are doing to Tibetans behind closed doors. This is sickening.

Windsock Steele’s Problem

Before a couple months ago, I probably had most of my exposure to Michael Steele through Bill Maher’s Real Time HBO show. Steele was a frequent guest, often playing the Republican foil to smarter, more successful Democrats (after all, lieutenant governor and failed Senate candidate isn’t much of a resume in the political world). Steele was at times an effective communicator in the panel discussion context because he could disagree without being disagreeable.

That, however, is a real problem with Steele qua RNC Chair. The modern Republican Party is premised on the idea that by being disagreeable with Democrats (notably the highly popular President), moderates and independents will like them. Of course that’s a bat shit crazy premise to work from (and I am totally fine with the GOP using it), but it’s a wrinkle that makes Steele’s tenure as RNC Chair likely to be short to start out with.

The problems he’s had recently of saying whatever it is his interviewer wants to hear stem directly from his desire to be agreeable.  Naturally the GOP response has been to publicly attack him for saying reasonable things that might actually help their party (EG, Limbaugh is an entertainer, abortion is a choice). That Steele is ready to correct himself with every misstep only solidifies the perception that he is a politically weak windsock who will blow whichever way his critics want him to blow.

The Madman

It really shouldn’t surprise anyone anymore that the purveyors and proselytizers of dead tree journalism don’t understand or respect new media. Nonetheless, the brazen way with some journalists and academics show their disdain for the 21st century is startling in its rank stupidity. Yglesias notes that accusations of new media as being “experiments in gadgetry” are “like saying that writing books is an experiment in playing with printing presses.”

Some day there will be a Columbia j-school professor who walks into his class of new students and something like this will happen:

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. “Whither is Journalism?” he cries; “I will tell you. We have killed it—you and I. All of us are his murderers.

Until then, wank on professors of journalism at Columbia!

Why Did the State Dept. Edit Comments on Tibet?

Yesterday the State Department put out a brief statement on Tibet, China, and March 10th. It was not in Secretary of State Clinton’s name and it was very timid.

Today, during the State Department’s daily press briefing, spokesman Robert Wood was questioned intensely by reporters about the statement and the process that lead it to being so weak.

QUESTION: Yeah. Robert, yesterday at almost about exactly this time – I think it was 11:05, at least according to the transcript – you came down and said that the Secretary would be issuing a statement about the 50th anniversary of the uprising in Tibet. About eight and a half hours later, a statement was, in fact, released, but it was in your name, not in the Secretary’s name. And I’m wondering if you can explain what happened between 11:05 and 7:38.
MR. WOOD: The statement has the full weight of the Secretary and the State Department behind it. Very simple.

QUESTION: You don’t think that a statement in the Secretary’s name is stronger or sends a stronger signal than –

MR. WOOD: What I’m saying to you is that the statement that we issued last night has the full weight of the Secretary. It was cleared by the Secretary and it represents the Secretary’s views.

QUESTION: Okay. At around the time – in the afternoon, or when this was being cleared, it looks like there was a lot of language removed from the –what I’m told was an original draft. The statement that came out doesn’t make reference to a couple things that I’m told were in the original draft, including stressing access to Tibet, to the region, creating conditions for negotiations between the Dalai Lama’s representatives and the Chinese, releasing prisoners, due process – respect for due process of law, and not criminalizing peaceful dissent. None of these things are specifically mentioned in the statement that came out, and I’m wondering why that is.
MR. WOOD: Well, Matt, I’m not going to talk about internal deliberations that we have with regard to statements, but let me just say that this is a statement that we put out yesterday. It reflects our policy. As I’ve said, once again, the Secretary’s full weight was behind the statement, and that’s where we stand.
QUESTION: How would you address criticism from people who – in the human rights community that this is really kind of allowing the Chinese – giving the Chinese a free ride on this?

MR. WOOD: I don’t believe it’s giving the Chinese a free ride on anything. I think we have said time and time again from this podium – you’ve heard it from previous secretaries of state, you’ve heard it from previous presidents – that we are very concerned about the situation in Tibet. We encourage the Chinese to improve the situation on the ground in Tibet. We will continue to do that. That statement that was issued yesterday evening reflects the State Department’s views about the situation. And once again, I just want to be very clear about this: This is a statement that was cleared by the Secretary, has the full weight of the State Department behind it.

It was disappointing to see Secretary of State Clinton not speak out on behalf of freedom, human rights, and the Tibetan people yesterday. It’s disappointing and quite troubling to see that the State Department dramatically walked back their plans in the course of a few hours, presumably under strong pressure from China.  The State Department has not only dodged an opportunity to be a voice for human rights and freedom — something the House of Representatives is again choosing to be on this issue — but actually dodged substantive, important questions about how US-Tibetan policy is being influenced on a day by day basis.

Congress has long been a leader in speaking out for Tibet and the Tibetan people. It’s time the State Department and Secretary of State Clinton step up and at bare minimum match the words and actions of Congress. Of course real leadership would mean dramaticaly charting a course forward that included recognizing that human rights cannot be separated from our dealings with China.