New Blog

Loyal readers (if there are any of you out there):

I've decided to start a new blog for my travels in Chile for the quarter. Check it out here

Time slowing down, report says

A table of notable Stanford luminaries declared this afternoon that time is officially slowing down. A follow up study by two Stanford scientists confirmed the report, and found a direct link between time slowing down and global climate change.

Junior M. Thomas James was the first to note the phenomenon.

“Lecture just took fucking forever this morning,” James said. “The only possible explanation I could think of was that time was slowing down.”

William Peterson, a junior, also pointed out that the increasing slowness of time had led to the overcooking of Ricker Dining’s famous chocolate chip cookies.

Ricker Dining Manager Mary Dutch confirmed time slowing down as the culprit.

“I set the oven for the same 45 minutes as I always do,” Dutch said. “But because time is actually slowing down, the cookies cooked longer and ended up being a little overbaked.”

Not all the side effects of time slowing down were negative, however.

“I got a less-than-ideal eight hours of sleep last night,” junior Nicolai Schlag said. “But I feel really refreshed. It must be because time is slowing down.”

A joint study between Stanford’s Hopkins Marine Center and Linear Accelerator Center confirmed the table’s report, found an inextricable link between time slowing down and global warming.

Stanford scientists Brandon Cortez and Shimon Kolkowitz, a biologist and physicist, respectively, issued a joint statement on their findings.

“Based on the most accurate scientific evidence ever found, we were forced to conclude that not only is time slowing down, but global warming is at fault,” the pair said. “We found that because the earth is heating up, it is slowing its rotation in order to compensate by creating less air friction. We don’t know what mechanism is actually slowing down the earth’s rotation, but it must be intelligently designed.”

Welcome to the Hotel Southeast Asia?

There's no "dark desert highway," but California seems to hold an important place in the hearts of several Southeast Asians I've encountered the past couple weeks. How else to explain the following phenomenon?:

Not once, not twice, but three times in the past week I've heard hilarious covers of The Eagles' "Hotel California." I expected to maybe hear The Beatles or crappy American Idols. But the Eagles are apparently where it's at.

First it was in a Spanish tapa bar last week. The red lights were dimmed, and a three-peice band complete with two Spanish guitars and an upright bass belted out "This could be Heaven or this could be Hell" while we sampled tapas and sipped a glass of wine.

Next, it was in Malaysia of all places, where a wizened old man, squinting in the sunlight in a church courtyard, strummed the famous chords while accepting donations in his plastic guitar case.

Finally, last night was maybe the most bizarre instance. A five-member neo-Peruvian band, with the melody played on some sort of panflute, crooned out the tune while on a sidewalk on Holland Drive--Singapore's bastion of consumerism comprised of seemingly endless miles of upscale shopping malls. An American song performed by Native South Americans in Southeast Asia. Hooray globalization!

In addition, "You can check in any time, but you can never leave" takes on a whole new meaning when you're in a semi-authoritarian nation.

Speaking of hotels, the music--not to mention the general experience--during the complimentary continental breakfast is hilarious. So far, they've piped in guitar/piano instrumentals of Sting, Green Day, Enya, and Osvaldo Farres.

Even better is the service. The hotel is essentially a college for prospective tourist industry workers. Thus the workers are especially polite and enthusiastic, but are learning their their craft on the go. One day I ordered sweet rolls with my breakfast (you get a choice of toast, sweet rolls, almond bread and danish pastries). What I got, by my smiling and attentive waitress, was a combination of toast, almond bread, and danish pastries. I ordered one--and got the other three!

At least it was service with a smile, which isn't always the case "In such a lovely place"

The Man in the Mirror

I was in the Hong Kong airport a couple weeks ago when it finally hit me how pervasive American culture had become. It wasn't the sight of teenagers dressed in Abercrombie and Fitch jeans, or the smell of McDonalds wafting from down from a terminal. No, it was the unmistakable shriek of one Michael Jackson.

The source of this cultural intrusion was an electronics store, playing a concert DVD of Jacko live in some Eastern European country on one of its mini DVD players. Not only did it strike me that an electronics store in Hong Kong was using Michael Jackson to hawk its DVD players, but the actual content surprised me even more. The Europeans were hysterical, teary-eyed and sobbing while the King of Pop crooned about the "Man in the Mirror." For people who were under the iron fist of Communist rule when Jackson first emerged onto the scene to have now fallen under his spell--we'll, we've come a long way baby.

I was reminded of this cultural exchange during a discussion today between my Stanford colleagues and Kishore Mahbubani, a former Singaporean ambassador to the UN and current dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy at the National University of Singapore. Mahbubani, who gained a reputation for being a "refreshing" diplomat for his acerbic candor, was unapolgetic in his defense of the Singapore model, which he described as a combination of meritocracy, pragmatism and honesty that threw concern for democratic institutions and civil liberties effectively out the window.

It got to the point where I think Larry Diamond, who is visiting Singapore with us for a few days, wanted to reach across the table and shake more diminutive Mahbubani around until he came to his senses about the benefits of liberal freedoms.

But Mahbubani, playing devil's advocate as he was, did raise a valid point. And that was that the moral basis for America's ideological push for democracy and human rights had been flushed down the toilet along with the Korans in Guantanamo.

America's moral standing "collapsed in a profound way," he said. The human rights abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib demonstrated "a reversal of what America stood for."

This is disconcerting, especially as its stems from the actions of an adminstration that claims to "stand for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness, and for the unalienable right for life." As President Bush makes his push in Congress to establish guidelines for the treatment of prisoners in this "war on terror," we must tread lightly. Five years after 9/11, we've lost the widespread support and sympathy we gained from nations around the world following that terrible tragedy.

If the war on terror ultimately rests on the liberation of the repressed and alienated Muslims of the Middle East--which I believe it does, to a certain extent--America must start with the man in the mirror. We cannot continue to push for democracy when we've lost all credibility on the international stage. Leaders who once considered reforms can now point to our failures in Iraq, our abuses in Guantanamo, not to mentino our pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina and say, "Is this what democracy looks like? No thanks!"

No message could have been any clearer. And when making a pragmatic argument for democracy, we may be losing as well.

Take, for example, the marketplace of ideas. Mahbubani made the distinction between the freedom of expression, and the freedom to think. What Singaporeans lack in American style freedom of expression, he said, they make up for with a superior freedom to think.

While I think this distinction may be fundamentally flawed, the intellectual laziness of America that he cites is troubling. After all, while American media was consumed by Michael Jackson's most recent criminal case in the spring of 2005, tens, if not hundreds of thousands were dying in the Darfur region of Sudan. The glorified free press of America barely raised a peep.

..."Then make that change," indeed.

Singapore: Of Palm Trees and Oil Rigs

Imagine, if you will, booking a hotel on Singapore's sunny Sentosa resort island. Complete with sandy beaches, palm trees, lush jungles, and quaint colonial buildings, the travel brochure paints a lovely picture of your destination, a a quiet getaway from the hustle and bustle of commercial, developed Singapore.

But there's a catch. Forget civil liberties, freedom of the press, free and fair elections. If there's one thing Singapore specializes in, it's economic freedom.

Hence the oil rigs and massive tankers that mar the skyline like a grain of sand in the eye. Just when former Prime Minister and current Minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew was ready to tout the new "fun" and creative Singapore, you realize that fun will never be the first word you use to describe the tiny city-state. It's all about development, seemingly at any cost.

That's not to say all is wrong with Singapore. Lee does deserve a good amount of credit for taking the island--reeling from its 1965 split with Malaysia--and turning it into a model for rapid development, reaching first-world status at record pace.

But at what price? Singapore's $29,900 GDP per capita (22nd worldwide) and and human development index of .907 (25th wordwide) are particularly remarkable for an island with 4.3 million people residing on 270 square miles of land, with no discernable natural resources and surrounded by potentially hostile Muslim neighbors.

It's those neighbors, and the potent ethnic mix of Chinese, Malays, Indians that led Lee and his ruling People's Action Party (PAP) to crack down on opposition and restrict freedoms in the name of preserving order, stability, and development. Despite its lauded showings on economic indexes, Singapore received a mere "partly free" designation from Freedom House and a lowly 140 out of 160 nations on the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index. While Singapore's economic development has lowered unemployment and attracted vast sums of foreign capital, it has done so without the liberal democratic institutions that traditionally accompany it.

Ask the average Singaporean, and they're just fine with the tradeoff. "I'm comfortable," they say. "The system works, here, so we don't mess with it."

In my ten days here so far, I've come to the conclusion that Singaporeans are at best pragmatic, at worst, risk adverse. Many seem to like the idea of democracy as a concept, but struggle to imagine a democratic Singapore, afriad to lose the economic rewards that 40-plus years of PAP rule has reaped.

The problem is, while the system may be working, there's a good chance that more freedoms could make it work better. A culture with greater freedoms of expression could fuel the innovative thought and creativity that the government's public service announcements solicit.

The beach may look pretty now, but imagine how much prettier it could be without the oil refineries.

The Holy Grail of Foreign Policy

"What specific priorities should your country have for the 21st century?"

At a forum a week ago with my 14 Stanford classmates and 15 students from the National University of Singapore, we each were given 30 seconds to give our best answer to the above question. Where do you begin? And more importantly, how do you answer such a question in 30 seconds?

My thoughts wandered until I stumbled upon a seemingly simplistic yet commonsensical answer: a viable and sustainable solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

I know, I’ve probably lost 75 percent of my readers right there. Such a solution—especially on the heels of Hezbollah and the Lebanon conflict—sounds just about as silly as Pluto dropping from the ranks of planethood.

But it needs to happen sooner rather than later. No less than the future of American foreign policy is at stake.

Think about it. What are America’s major concerns overseas? Terrorism, energy/oil, and, unless you’re John Bolton, our worsening image problem with allies, former allies and neutral parties. New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman frequently cites his “geo-green” solution, namely that if America were to take the lead on developing sustainable, renewable energy sources it could wean itself off oil—taking away a major source of money and power for autocratic Arab regimes and making sure the United States doesn’t suffer when China and India reach their peak oil consumption and throw a wrench in the world market.

I agree with Friedman to a large extent. From the standpoint of political economy, it’s a great initiative—he often compares it to a modern quest for a moon landing. But I think if coupled with a shift in foreign policy priorities, away from Iraq and Iran and toward Israel-Palestine, we would really get somewhere. Call it the “Pluto mission” if you must.

Such a viable and sustainable solution to Israel-Palestine wouldn’t win the “War on Terror,” but it would go a long way to that end. A sense of justice is missing in the Middle East, and until we find that justice, millions of Muslims worldwide will still eye the United States with the slight edge of suspicion. “The War on Terror” isn’t even a war on terrorism—terror is only a tool, a means to an end. The war must be won in the hearts and minds of the people of the Middle East, the alienated and repressed youth who are increasingly turning toward radicalism and violent jihad because they have nowhere else to go.

A solution to Israel-Palestine would restore a sense of justice to the region, and as my advisor Larry Diamond speculates, would remove the political climate where Arab autocrats can cover their abuses by placing the blame on Israel. Once oppressed societies “can focus on the real sources of their misery and frustration,” the U.S. can finally get on with its goal of democracy promotion—a noble goal in my mind. It’s a goal that has simply been sought on the wrong front, in Iraq. If we took the billions spent on Iraq and poured them into universities, think-tanks, and summits aimed at finding a solution to Israel-Palestine, we’d be looking at a freer, friendlier Middle East—and a less smug Iran—then the current mire we’re bogged down in.

I’m not going to sit here and pretend to have all the answers. It’s a terribly complicated situation, a tragic saga of exploitation, hatred and misguided colonialism that won’t be undone easily. My guess is that a solution begins with Israel withdrawing to pre-1967 borders, getting security assurances from its neighbors. The Palestinian state would have to be essentially demilitarized, and non-state militias such as Hezbollah would have to be disarmed. UN peacekeepers would likely be deployed to enforce the situation, and NATO and the EU may have to threaten to use force to enforce the peace as well.

It’s not a perfect answer, but it’s a start. There can be many debates and arguments, but the reality is that our foreign policy should, for the time being, begin and end with finding a solution. There’s simply too much to lose—security from terror, stable energy markets and perhaps globalization itself—if we don’t. We should at least try. Who knows, if you shoot for the moon, you may just land on Pluto.

Hong Kong: A Modern Marvel

Spend only a couple days in Hong Kong, and it’s easy to get the feeling that you’re experiencing the city of the future. One look at the city’s magnificent skyline, and it’s obvious why.

From I.M. Pei’s geometrically challenging Bank of China building, to the seemingly endless rows of towering high-density apartments, Hong Kong’s architects are moving in one direction—up. And with only reclaimed land to work with to house the city’s nearly 7 million denizens, they have no choice (that’s some 6,300 people per square kilometer, for those keeping score at home).

That’s not to say all of Hong Kong is urban, crowded, and commercial. Indeed, the evening the skyline is littered with a rainbow of corporate advertisements emblazoned on top of the skyscrapers. But during the day, you can’t miss the fact that beyond the few miles of sky-high development lies largely untarnished, lush forest; a forest that contains such breathtaking sights as the Po Lin Monastery and giant Tian Tan Buddha statue.

The Statue is only a short train ride—Hong Kong’s mass transportation system is nearly flawless, not to mention spotless—to a bus station, and shopping mall, at the bottom of the mountain. Sure the bus is packed, and winds its way up the hills on a rickety one-lane road, but that’s part of the fun. But don’t you think developing China is overlooking the potential here: not only was there constant construction work to widen the road, but also a giant commercial gondola (think Disneyland, or Tahoe) is only months away from completion.

In some ways, it’s sad that such a serine destination will be “tainted” by a transportation upgrade. The gondola doesn’t seem to stick out too much, as far as I could tell, but it will undoubtedly bring tourists by the bunches, cameras at the ready. One does hope that the real beneficiaries of this development are the Po Lin monks, who are looking for donations to fund a new wing for their compound.

Despite its perch on Globalization’s front lines, Hong Kong really has done well to retain a sense of culture and identity. For as you make your way past the financial district, you run into street fairs, night markets, churches and cafes. Under the shadows of the Western, globalized financial firms in their towers remains a culture that is very keen on keeping itself alive and vigorous. Globalization’s discontents could do much to learn from the Hong Kong example.

And they aren’t the only ones.

With it’s densely housed populace, but preserved open spaces, Hong Kong is truly a model for efficient, green city planning. With a brilliant subway—did I mention the mass transit system is great?—already in place, one can imagine simply replacing the endless lines of taxis with hybrids, and voila—an environmentalist’s paradise. To be fair, you have to figure out how to power all the skyscrapers and billboards—but that’s another day!

My experience after leaving my hotel sealed the deal. After a short taxi ride to the train station, I was astonished to learn that I could get my airline’s boarding pass and check in my baggage at the train station! Such efficiency! So, after checking in my luggage and taking the carefree train ride to the airport, all I had to do was briefly go through security and I was home free. What a concept!

With that in mind, it’s hard to be too worked up about the future of globalization and the rise of China if they follow the Hong Kong model. And if the era of America’s sprawling suburbia declines and gives way to the rise of the Asian city-state—I know where I’m headed.

Introduction

I was going to write an introduction post, but what's the point? For now, I'll let the posts speak for themselves...