Monday, August 25, 2008

Beijing Olympics: The Commercials

About the American commercials for the 2008 Beijing Olympics:

The Good

The Coca-Cola commercial with the cartoon birds stealing drinking straws to make a similitude of the Chinese Bird's Nest stadium. The birds are cute, and the message is not all that bad, either.

The Bad

Oreo's train commercial with two children who mimic each other, with the message being the commonality of Mankind. The audience is supposed to automatically conclude that the 'white' child is an American (Oreo is supposed to be 'America's favorite cookie,' after all) while the 'yellow' child is Chinese. The 'white' child could easily be Irish, Canadian, or some other nationality while the 'yellow' child could easily be the American. Neither child (nor parent) speaks in the commercial, so nationality cannot be determined by accent or language. Solely 'race' is used to assign nationality: Americans are 'white;' and the foreigner is the 'yellow' child. The makers of 'America's favorite' cookie ought to find out that America is not all 'white.'

The Ugly

Basically any of the United Airlines commercials, especially the marine orchestra and black and white to color ones. Hideous. Too much frilly-ness and weirdness.

Other Mentionables

General Electric's crane takeoff and rural China commercials. The baby turtles were cute, and the two 'Chinese' protagonists weren't stereotyped and were attractive (the guy was so not Han Chinese, and obviously ethnically Korean). Doesn't do justice to the India version, where they just get a dorky magical doctor. The McDonald's loser soccer team commercial was decent. Then there was Budweiser's identity crisis. 'The great American lager.' Budweiser's 'American Ale.' Is Budweiser wondering whether 'hardworking Americans' will abandon their company after the takeover? Budweiser, the great American lager? Are you referring to Budweiser, the mediocre Belgian beer? The Ellis Island conservation commercial was lame: who actually believes that the greatest thing for Phelp's is to be an American? Phelps won eight medals for Phelps, and he didn't even sing the national anthem.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Beijing Olympics: The Closing Ceremony

Not bad. That describes the Closing Ceremony of the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, China.

As with the starting ceremony, this one made liberal use of many people working either together or in unison. The light-studded little green men made another appearance.

Although there were glimmers of it in the starting ceremony--notably in the dresses of the guides in the Parade of Nations (the people who carried the signs with the countries' names on them)--the closing ceremony drew a lot from the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, or as NBC calls it, Torino. The uniforms of the drummers, along with their 'speedy' looking bicycle helmets evoked those previous Olympics, as did the almost-nudists, with both having a similitude to the Italians' dancing 'skinless man.'

The London performance part (as the British capital is set to be the site of the 2012 Olympics) was practically a cultural death scream. A sign of Britain and Europe falling more and more into irrelevance. Still, Beckham almost knocking off the head of a Japanese athlete with a kicked soccer ball, which also flustered Chinese volunteers who had difficulty catching the sporty projectile, was interesting, and offset Leona Lewis and some old fart's screeched-out 'song.'

The closing ceremony was not as great as the starting ceremony, but--as stated--the Chinese ending of their Olympics was not bad.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Friday, August 22, 2008

Beijing Olympics: ASEAN Should Send a Single Team to the Olympics

ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, should send a single, unified team to the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, Canada, and especially to the 2012 Summer Olympics in London, United Kingdom.

ASEAN supposedly has the goal of forming an EU-style union from ASEAN's current ten members by the year 2015. To achieve support for that goal, the governments of ASEAN's member states have to work much harder to instill as sense of comraderie among Southeast Asians. As is, there is not much Southeast Asian solidarity, and countries such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and Malaysia are already struggling with forming a common ethnicity within their own lands. Having a single, ASEAN team at the Olympics would go some ways toward forming a single ASEAN ethnicity. Thais, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Indonesians, Singaporeans would all be rooting for ASEAN to win. When ASEAN wins, they feel that they've won; when ASEAN loses, they feel that they've lost. By having one team for all the ten member states of ASEAN, ASEAN can become a stronger ideal for the average Southeast Asian citizen.

One single Olympic team for ASEAN would also boost the odds of ASEAN winning a fair amount of medals. The total ASEAN population numbers around 600 million people. The largest single state in ASEAN, Indonesia, has only around 250 million people. By sheer dint of numbers, with 600 million people, ASEAN should be able to win a fair amount of medals, even gold. To date, even the most successful Southeast Asian nations have only a few medals to their names.

However, the advantage of a unified, ASEAN Olympic team is that it would also allow for Southeast Asian athletes who show potential to train in the most advanced athletics facilities in Southeast Asia, alongside the top athletes in Southeast Asia, and be coached by the top coaches in Southeast Asia. The talent from across the region can be consolidated into a few sports centers.

Alternatively, ASEAN athletes who show potential can be sent to other countries to work on their sport, in a similar fashion to what many African and Caribbean countries do by having many of their athletes emigrate to the United States. ASEAN athletes can be sent to the United States or, closer to home, Australia. Yet, Singapore has decent sporting facilities in several fields, so at least some of the ASEAN athletes can be 'home-grown.'

Ultimately, from a pragmatical standpoint, a country winning some medals is fairly irrelevant. Zimbabwe's gold medals will not turn Zimbabwe into a developed country by themselves. Nor will China's medal haul turn the People's Republic automatically into a superpower.

But having Olympics medals do bring a nation pride, and ASEAN--both as a group and as individual states--can use some of that. They also put a country on the map, if only temporarily. There could be many people looking up Jamaica around the world in recent days.

There is also precedent. In the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the now-independent former Soviet Republics sent a single team to the Olympics. North Korea and South Korea have had a single, unified Olympic team, too. And several prominent Europeans have suggested that the European Union should send one team representing the EU to the Olympics.

So, for the nationalism they bring, for the pride they bring, the governments and peoples of Burma, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam should consider pooling their resources and talent, and send a single, unified, ASEAN team to future Olympics.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Beijing Olympics: 10m Platform Diving: Unfair Scoring for Wang Xin

In the 10m diving Olympics competition, the judges, and NBC analyst were far too lenient on Chinese diver Wang Xin. This poor judgment was due to their not recognizing bad entries into the water by Wang. On at least two dives, the entry was quite bad, and a splash was made. However, the splash was not big, and went largely unnoticed by the judges. Both the judges and NBC analyst did not take into account Wang's height, weight, and build. If Wang landed flat on her stomach, the splash made would be less than more vertical splashes made by bigger, more robust, divers. Or conversely, if Wang was of roughly the same build as many of the non-Asian divers, on at least two of the dives, there would have been big splashes. The judges are judging diving skill, not who is thinner and more emaciated. They should be able to recognize how a big splash from a skinny, small diver looks, and judge accordingly, giving an equal score as an equivalent entry by a bigger diver whose splash would be larger, simply because of having a stockier build. Wang Xin did not deserve bronze.

Chen Roulin did, however, deserve gold. Chen's performance was superb, and showed that more thickly-built people can make smaller splashes than smaller people, with sufficient skill. But Wang received too high scores for diving entries which on other divers would have received fewer points.

LINKS

On a side note, in the men's beach volleyball competition, the Brazilian fans were extraordinarily badly behaved, booing the Americans on almost every serve by that team--and they did seem to rattle Dallhauser. The team players themselves acted typically Latin American, crying wolf over supposed faults excessively in the hopes of an advantage. Fortunately, the Italian referee was sane, and did not act on one of Latin America's most foolish cultural traits.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

A Case for Federalism in the Philippines (Cha-cha).

Reasons why the Philippines should accept Charter Change, 'Cha-cha', and adopt a federal form of government:

The Senate

Under the current plans for federalism, the Philippines will be divided into eleven states. One reason why this is a good idea is that Senators will be chosen to represent, and be elected by, individual regions of the Philippines. Currently, Senators are elected at a nation-wide level, and as a result of this and: the Philippines' geography of being an archipelago of islands (difficulty with traveling between them); ethnic diversity within the Philippines with multiple languages; and the Philippines' low development status, Senators are largely celebrities or relatives in famous Filipino families, and part of the Filipino aristocracy.

If Cha-cha is even roughly based on the American model, then Senators will be voted from each state. Especially notable is that each Senator will have to live in his state, for several years before seeking election. The Manila-based aristocracy could be a tad reluctant to live in poorer parts of the Philippines. A Senator from, type, MINDANAO, would have a greater interest in seeing that the violence in the region stops and that more of an effort to develop his state is put in place by Manila, since his property and life would be at risk. So, if Senators are voted locally and by their own people, they will have more of an interest in developing the state in which they reside. More development in a state, the more safety--because people will have decently paying jobs and tax money will be used more efficiently. The more safety and development, the more wealth (pride for the Senator who gets to boast of how great his state is), and greater clout for the state (and Senator) in Congress (because more people will move there, and the economic impact of the state will be larger). Senators won't just be some rich brats who are practically clueless about what is occurring in far-flung parts of the country, and frankly just have the job for the perks. Instead, the Senators would be drawn from the local populations. The state electorates would stand a greater chance of actually knowing the politician they're voting into office, and the Senator would be directly accountable to his electorate, and would live among them. He'd have pressure on him to deliver. So the Senate would be staffed by people who actually have something to gain or lose depending on how much effort they put into serving the interests of their state.

Shutting up the Muslims

Actually reluctant about this, because judging from global conflicts, Muslims seem to respond to greater autonomy in separatist struggles by deluding themselves into believing their violence was the source of victory, and they then just fight more violently and for more land. That stated, federalism in the Philippines would make the Mindanao Muslims more responsible for their states' development. And hopefully, given that Southeast Asian Muslims tend to be more peaceful than their Arab counterparts, a Muslim majority state in Mindanao will actually bring peace and not more bloodshed. And any majority Muslim Philippine state would still be bound by the rights of all Filipinos to freely worship as they choose. So NO enforcement of sharia involuntarily in any area of life.

(Other) Corruption

Along with the corruption from the Senators--a big issue in the Philippines--being curtailed by federalism, as stated above, federalism will hamper corruption in general, too. States where there is more corruption will perform more poorly (taking into account things such as population, resources, potential, etc.) than states in which there is less corruption. Less corrupt states will attract more business, more people, and have more developed road, water, electrical, rail, etc. systems because taxes will actually be spent on public projects. Corrupt states will lose business, have bad roads, electricity, etc., and because of the loss of business--and population as people migrate to more developed states (free and completely legal migration between states, as opposed to international migration from the Philippines to another country)--corrupt states will receive less and less tax money. Less tax money would lead to less income for corrupt politicians and officials lining their pockets with taxpayers' pesos. Tack onto this that the electorates of badly performing states will demand progress and the same developmental status as the more advanced states. Eventually, corrupt state officials will be forced to clamp down on corruption if they want to make any money, and will have more incentive to reduce corruption in their state. They won't be able to blame far-off Manila as much; the state governments will be more accountable.
LINKS

Arroyo's Term

Some have argued that federalism will allow President Arroyo to remain in office longer. Personally don't see this, but even if that is the case, so what? Under Arroyo, the Philippine government has undertaken massive and necessary tax reform which has brought more money into the government so that the government can spend more on much-needed roads, energy, sanitation, and other construction projects. And even with the fishy Internet network deal with China, Arroyo is definitely no more corrupt than many of the Filipino Senators. Even if federalism gives Arroyo a few more years, the benefit of a federal Philippines more than makes up for a little more of Arroyo (by a long shot).


So, in conclusion......

Actually would support Arroyo's apparently earlier vision of a Philippines with a parliamentary, unicameral system of government moreso than federalism*, but as that no longer seems to be a choice, federalism in the Philippines is still a huge step up from the current system which makes it far too easy for politicians and government workers to be corrupt or incompetent (or both) and drive the Philippine economy and development into the ground. Federalism provides the opportunity for a more locally-attuned and locally-driven Philippines where officials will be held more accountable for how they govern.

*Even more than a unicameral legislature, would especially support the Philippines ditching democracy altogether and becoming an authoritarian society until the country is developed. But fat chance of that happening.
wall.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Beijing Olympics: NBC Sucks

NBC sucks. The sole American broadcaster of the Beijing Olympics has advertised that they will be showing video of the Olympics on the Internet for the duration of the games. For a while, this was the case. Video could be watched, with relatively few hindrances. There were some, such as delaying showing the starting ceremony, and they also do not show live other big parts of the Olympics because there is still more revenue to be won from television advertisements than Internet ones. Still, by and large, NBC was tolerable as the exclusive provider of the Olympics to Americans (legally).

But now they've gone to far. They've made deals with cable and satellite television companies, and today restrict access to (at least old) Olympic coverage to subscribers of those cable and satellite television providers.

This is in contrast to Britons, who receive Olympics coverage from the BBC for free (although they pay for the BBC through taxes when they buy televisions), including on the Internet.

Now, you can illegally watch the Olympics on the Internet if you are an American without cable or satellite television, but that would be illegal, and some Americans still consider illegality a crime. So NBC is even more disgusting for those people.

Not only do commercials cut out parts of the Olympics, but now the NBC leadership is gouging their audience to try to boost their ratings--to an excessive degree. There is a similar thing with hulu.com, run jointly by NBC and FOX. Rupert Murdoch gets slimed for being an evil capitalist, and yet even a mild familiarity with hulu.com will show that by-and-far NBC is the most stingy and restrictive of the two. FOX by comparison is downright generous.

NBC should be punished, and should lose the exclusive license to show the Olympics to Americans.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Beijing Olympics: Gymnastics: America Syndrome?

In the Athens Olympics, widely held to be a major contender for gold medal in the field of gymnastics, did not win after the Chinese team imploded. A single fault by a single gymnast snowballed into more faults by both that individual and that gymnast's teammates. In the United States, this athletic implosion was dubbed 'China Syndrome' to describe how the Chinese team fell apart after the team members lost confidence in themselves.

In Beijing, it was the United States' turn for an 'America Syndrome.'

For both the women and men, the American team had a single fault which then spilled over into enough to knock the American women into second place, while the men won bronze. In notable contrast to Athens, the Chinese team made some flaws, but were not perturbed enough by them to implode. They obviously have learned from their Athens experience, and have triumphed in Beijing.

On a sidenote, Tim Daggett is difficult to listen to, as an American. Of the Olympics gymnastics analysts, he seems to be the most realistic, yet gets under the skin by seeming to poo-poo the American team while promoting the other--particularly Chinese--team. Quite un-American. Personally can 'sympathize', though as also then to have a similar attitude. Be realistic, even if others don't want to hear.

LINKS

Now the Americans have to learn how to cope with faults and not let them destroy confidence into themselves. And emulate the Chinese and make this 'America Syndrome' a one Olympic phenomenon. Hopefully in the London Games, Team USA does not let a single fault do them in. And, to be fair, for the men, they lost the Hamm twins, two of America's top gymnasts. That they got a bronze was actually somewhat impressive.

And take into account, for all the stirred up rivalry between China and America, and the Chinese thrashing the Americans in gold medal rankings, the Olympics are just an athletic competition. While symbolic, they do not necessarily represent in themselves China's coming usurpation of America's role as premiere global superpower. When China's economy surpasses the United State's, and then their military strength, and then their technology, followed by their worldwide cultural influence, then China will have beaten America in a major competition. Not before, with or without 'China Syndrome' or 'America Syndrome'.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Beijing Olympics: The starting Ceremony

The starting ceremony was SPECTACULAR*.

Hands down, the ceremony was the top Olympics starting ceremony personally have seen. The Chinese went all out, and the ceremony showed that. This was long slated as China's 'coming out party' to the world, where China showed the world that China had arrived, and had reemerged as a (or the) global power. The ceremony masterfully tried to strike a balance between reassuring the world that China is a friend while also straightly demonstrating that China has traditionally been, and is, one of the greatest countries on the planet. As such, the propagandistic elements of the ceremony did not disappoint. However, there were also quite a few surprises, too.

Great job, China.

Propaganda
The ceremony was obviously a work of propaganda, but an enormously greatly crafted piece. Almost similar to Japan at the World Fair, the China performance displayed a China which sought to be a peaceful friend to the world, a threat to no other country. The performers enthusiastically greeted the foreigners in the drum segment. The movable type people showed that Chinese people can be as warm and friendly as any other people, and not repressively cold, something Chinese believe Westerners believe about them.

Parading the 'ethnic minorities' was smart, given the controversy over Tibet and human rights failings, as was giving prominence to the Sichuan earthquake. Having the Sichuan boy in the Parade of Nations was not dissimilar to the Americans carrying the September 11 flag at the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.

Who wants to bet that Chinese media told the Chinese audience to applaud and greet with enthusiasm the UK, United States, and especially France? Returning antagonism with friendliness. Granted, the Chinese actually seem less anti-American than the Indians; and the applause for Iraq was kind of them, though whether this was supportive of the American effort or out of sympathy for the 'poor, occupied country' is debatable.

The lighting of the torch, too, was smart. The long scroll of Chinese history, and the long race of the Chinese people culminating up to this moment; quite touching. And the crowning achievement for that segment: showing the videos of the torch relay around the world, and putting to shame those who protested during the relays. While they were hurling hatred at China, the Chinese were collecting video to show the inclusion and common togetherness of all humanity. That the Olympics are for the world, and world played a part in the arrival of these Olympics. Playing the victim--excellent.

Surprises
There were also many surprises, however, which definitely bucked the propagandistic trend, though they could have simply been propaganda for domestic--rather than foreign--consumption. And the Chinese could be dually applauded and scrutinized for them.

To start off with, the drummers. Awesome would be the term to describe them--both the modern and old connotations.

The countdown from ten in both Arabic and Chinese numerals, was poignant, one of several features which boldly reminded people that China has been a developed and advanced nation longer than any other surviving one, and that there's a reason why there was a West. Because there was a matching East, and China traditionally was the main player in the East.

The foreignness of that segment, with the people with red lines running down their foreheads, and yelling in strange, high-pitched foreign words, had to make at least a few Westerners feel somewhat odd. One thing's for sure: those (mainly mainland European) Westerners so eager for China to usurp the global reins of power from the evil United States had to be a little put off by the bewildering exoticism and the realization that Chinese culture is still largely distinct from Western cultures. The evil United States is at least comprehensible and understandable.

But kudos to the Chinese. Considering they used to try to get rid of much of their pre-Communist, pre-modern culture, this Olympics has demonstrated a resurgence of traditional Chinese culture, and a China proud of its imperial history. At one point, the Communists went so far as to consider replacing the character system with the Roman alphabet (they opted for Simplified Chinese, instead). You should note that the Chinese national anthem is played using the Western eight-note octave system, rather than the traditional ten-note Chinese one. So, this ceremony demonstrated the resurgence of and respect for traditions, Confucianism and parts of Chinese history which the Communist Party used to discourage.

There were also things which did play into Western stereotypes about East Asians, and Chinese in particular.

Firstly, the massive numbers of drummers (and, later, other performers). China's huge population is what [peturbs] the West the most about China; the Chinese population is larger than that of the whole developed West. Seeing a bunch of Chinese banging drums (at least in the West commonly associated with war), had to be a bit perturbing to many Westerners.

Secondly, the precision with which the Chinese performed played into the stereotype of Asians being human automatons.

This was combined with the high degree of coordination, bringing up the idea of Chinese robots working in unison.

During the drumming, and at most parts of the artistic segment, the performers strikingly conveyed the idea of the preeminence of the collective over the individual. The Chinese worked as a group, as one comprised of many, working for the whole. This collectivism, while not necessarily being bad, is at odds with the cherished Western and American concept of individualism, individuality often taking preeminence over the group.

Even their T'ang Dynasty portion was bold, in showing the benefits of foreign contact--but foreign contact with India and Asia, not the West. In contrast, at least from what NBC showed, contributions of the West to China, including Communism, did not make a major appearance.

In tune with this, and sort of calling American President Bush's 'bluff' about how China should respect the freedom of religion, the ceremony demonstrated respect for two religions.... Buddhism and Taoism, both of which have a long history in Han China, and are not considered the threat Christianity is. Bush should use all religions if he wants to be clear.

The Americans
Bob Costas, with Lauer and NBC's China analyst beside him, came across as ignorant, and even quite rude, both toward the Chinese, and also to other nations, more than once somewhat mocking the garb of some countries. The little bit about the Chinese soldier carrying the Olympic flag was uncalled for (the earlier statement about the child and the soldier for the Chinese flag was more valid, though). Basically all home countries in every Olympics use soldiers to raise the flags; Bob Costas, who has been the main anchor for the Olympics for years, ought to know this.

President Bush's attendance is also notable. Apparently no sitting American President before Bush has attended an Olympics in a foreign country. That Bush did so for China demonstrates American recognition as China as a major power, and as the primary candidate to unseat the United States.

Once again, Team USA's uniforms were stupid. Enough with the lame hats, already. Now they're golfing hats rather than berets, but still. If Americans has to have hats, how about actually American hats? And the blazer and slacks combo was not all that impressive considering practically all nations used that. The fashion award would go to Sweden, whose Chinese-influenced dress paid homage to the home country and gave the Swedes a way to fashionably cool themselves (with East Asian style fans displaying the Swedish flag).
LINKS


Whether or not the ceremony had an effect in dispelling [peturbance] of China or creating more of it is yet to be seen. A goal of these Olympics was to show that China is modern country, a twenty-first century country. The thing is, that is largely not disputed. Many are ready to acknowledge than China is modern, that today China is a world power, and even that China can surpass the United States in overall power before the dawn of the twenty-second century. What's getting people's attention is whether China will emerge as a good superpower, or whether China will emulate the old West--and with a larger, more unified population than the West--and conquer and oppress, even slaughter, much of the world.

And it's going to take far more than a spectacular starting ceremony for the Olympics to answer that question.

*In the earlier post, guessed that NBC would be showing online live the starting ceremony. Such was not the case. NBC's executives were greedy, and some major Olympic shows will not first be shown on television.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.

Monday, August 4, 2008

The Economist hates the Philippines

The widely read and respected British newspaper, "The Economist" seems to hate the Philippines. Although the newspaper, more of a magazine by American standards, rarely has articles devoted to the country, when it does cover the Philippines, the articles usually contain undue criticism of the Southeast Asian nation. While the Philippines most definitely deserves plenty of criticism, "The Economist" goes too far in its obviously low opinion of Asia's oldest democratic state.

The Philippines is not completely pathetic.

For instance, "The Economist" seems to believe that the Philippines is "perennially unstable", and wracked by frequent coups.

Now, while there's some validity to the general feel of that statement, the statement is actually inaccurate. The Philippines is not politically unstable. The state apparatus has not been overthrown. As for coups, while there have been several attempted coups, there have only been two 'successes,' which ousted Presidents Marcos and Estrada. In contrast, Thailand, which "The Economist" seems to generally respect, has almost cyclically gone from military coup, to democracy, to military coup, the most recent being last year.

There is a similar story for corruption. The Philippine government and economy is hugely ridden with corruption. And polls have shown that the Philippines is perceived as the most corrupt major country in all East Asia. Yet in reality, the Philippines' neighbor, Vietnam, is also saddled by corruption, but that is not a deterrent to investors, and Vietnam is not perceived to be nearly as corrupt as the Philippines.

In the same vein, for the last few years, Vietnam and the Philippines have both posted roughly equal GDP growth. Yet while Vietnam's advance is hailed as an economic miracle, and Vietnam is commonly touted as the up-and-coming Asian state for foreign investment, the Philippines is still looked upon as a failure, and an FDI risk.
"The Economist" opinion:
[Thailand] "risks becoming one of those perennially unstable, tragi-comic countries, such as the Philippines, which the outside world overlooks".

-The Economist, May 31, 2008.


But more specifically to "The Economist."

"The Economist" believes that the Philippines has high unemployment. While higher than the United States, "Forbes.com" reports that the Philippine unemployment rate is around 7%, bad but not downright disastrous, especially for a developing country.

Even when reporting something the Philippines has going for it, such as 2007's GDP growth rate of over 7%, "The Economist" has to (unnecessarily) add something to demonstrate the scorn the weekly has for the country, as the article, "Credibility deficit" shows.

That article could also hold some clues as to the reason for "The Economist's" contempt and ire for the Philippines. Firstly, the Philippines used to be the second largest economy in East Asia, excluding the USSR, after Japan. However, soon after Marcos took office, the Philippine economic growth almost stopped, and now the Philippines is one of the poorest countries in Asia. (Note: Marcos wasn't solely to blame; the Philippines had developmental disaster coming based on groundwork laid during the Spanish colonial era, when the Filipino aristocracy and clergy were put in charge of vast land holdings.)

The second reason could have to do with Filipinos directly. As the title of the article intimates, too many Filipinos seem to exhibit a "credibility deficit." That is to type, they are dishonest--not necessarily intentional, but they end up that way. Such is largely the case because there is also the tendency for Filipinos (at least on the Internet) to overly romanticize, sensationalize, and be melodramatic about things. A quick look at many of the Philippines related entries on Wikipedia would speedily show that that is the case. Having to sift out what is real about the Philippines is difficult, not dissimilar to how Afrocentrists shoot themselves in the feet by topping off some facts with loads of fantasies. In contrast to "The Economist," people on Wikipedia make out the Philippines to be far greater than the nation actually is, and therefore throw into doubt some factual and impressive things about the Philippines. A few bad apples spoil the barrel.

The Philippines has a lot going badly. The Philippines is a poor country, even by Southeast Asian standards. Too much land is in the hands of the de facto aristocracy, and there is far too little of the land redistribution which is so necessary if the Philippines is to become a developed country within the next century. The same aristocracy is in charge of the government which is so incompetent and corrupt that economic growth is retarded. The Philippines needs new roads, railways, ports, power plants, sewers, etc. Filipinos protest and demonstrate too much, and that puts off investors, as does the excessively high minimum wage which practically drives them to much cheaper neighbors, China and Vietnam. (Which is why Philippine industry is comparably so small and heavily concentrated in the more expensive fields of electronics and semiconductors--which pay more, but offer fewer jobs than, say, the garment or toy manufacturing industries.) The Philippines is screwed up in so many ways, and is in an extremely cruddy position, especially given the fact that the republic used to be one of the wealthiest in the continent. That is not up for debate at all (except for some of those deluded 'sensationalist' Filipinos such as those Wikipedians).
LINKS

What is being contested is that "The Economist" is being unduly unfair to the Philippines, reporting on the country of some 90 million people (more than Germany, with more people and a larger economy than Vietnam) so infrequently, and when mentioned, the nation gets at most a half a page of criticism. (For comparison, Palestine gets an article almost every other week.) The Philippine economy does have some things going for it. "The Economist" should consider mentioning those once and a while.

This article does not fully illustrate the blatant prejudice "The Economist" has against the Philippines (and, interestingly, India). This post isn't exactly of the highest quality. Therefore, for interested readers, you should look at this archived list of Philippines' related articles. You don't have to read much to see the rather antagonist trend.

Although "The Economist" no longer is heavily based on economics--the newspaper has more of a geography/ethicist flavor nowadays--and most economists and investors worth their salt would not invest solely based on the opinions expressed, "The Economist" is still a respected publication, and is still used by some investors to make investment decisions. As such, their contempt and dismissal of the Philippines could prevent some people who would otherwise invest in the island nation.

If you agree that "The Economist" ought to not overlook the Philippines--as "The Economist" erroneously believes the world does--then here's a suggestion: You can send a message to "The Economist" and ask (or demand) that they report more often and in greater length on the Philippines, and include the good with the bad, along with actually making some constructive suggestions on how the Philippines can speed up economic development. The link is the last in the LINKS list, the one in red. If enough people send messages, "The Economist" could be pressured to alter its opinions about the Philippines.

------
[UPDATE]: Readers should now be able to send a message to "The Economist." Stupidly guessed at the proper HTML necessary.

Another thing is security, with "The Economist" giving the Philippines extremely low scores for security due to the violence in Mindanao. Yet what about great China, with not only separatism in Xinjiang, but also frequent riots due to local corruption and oppression? What about southern Thailand, or Indonesia? Or even Brazil, which has plenty of violent crime? And Mindanao is on an island. Xinjiang, southern Thailand, etc. are on the mainland. Investors can invest in Luzon or the Visayas, two other regions of the Philippines located on separate islands from Mindanao, without too much security risk. Crossing water is usually more difficult than crossing land. The Philippines should not have a score of 'E', at least if those other countries do not also have similar rankings. The Philippines is just a bit more vocal and expressive in displaying unrest than those others, a downside of free democracy.

And on their 'country briefing' webpage, the map is inaccurate, showing Sabah as being Indonesia. Trying to push the Philippines even further out into the ocean?

On a sidenote, at least the Philippines seems to be trading more with other East Asian countries, especially China, rather than with the United States and Europe. Transporting products across continents costs more money than shipping to neighbors, after all (although arguably the developed West would be willing to pay more....). The Philippines' recent economic growth is tied to growth in trade and investment by and into the country's fellow East Asian states.

Tag this post with:
Delicious Logo Delicious Digg Logo Digg Technorati Logo Technorati reddit Logo reddit Facebook Logo Facebook Stumble Upon Toolbar StumbleUpon Furl Logo Furl Digg Logo blinklist

--------
Found this article interesting? Check out:
History: The Roadmap to the Future.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Africa.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Asia.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Europe.
History: The Roadmap to the Future--Latin America.

Or:
The Science Fiction Channel + Technorium.
The Vegetarian Diaries + Biologeel.