I beg the ignorant in the west to stop doing things to cause me to have to defend China… seriously.

Now there is a video and report of Christian Bale (of Batman fame), in China, being what they call “roughed up” by plainclothes police, as he attempts to visit a man people are referring to as an activist.

This post isn’t about the man he was going to visit, nor is it about the validity of the charges against him.  This is simply about the hypocrisy and ignorance of some of the people from the west who come here.

In the video (link to CNN report), Bale and a group of reporters can be seen filming as they walk down a road where guards are standing.  When the guards ask them to stop filming and they do not, they try to take the cameras from them and force them to leave.

When it is obvious that they are going to be turned away, Bale yells out “Why can’t I visit a free man?”  Eventually Bale and the group of reporters go back to their van and film what they claim are those guards following them for 30 minutes.

(Much of the rest of this is from a comment I posted on CNN.)

If there is one thing I hate more than the situation in China, it is uninformed, self promoting actors who feel that their station in life makes them some defender of a cause.  Now we can add Christian Bale to the likes of Richard Gere, who know nothing about their cause, and even less about China. (Or they are informed, but use their knowledge to sensationalize the situation, causing the uninformed to jump on the cause.)

Regardless of the validity of the charges against the man he was trying to meet:

Was Bale ignorant, or sensationalizing when he said “Why can’t I visit this free man“?  This man isn’t free, he is under house arrest (软禁). Even in the US, visitations while under house arrest are often restricted and must go through court approval first, and their conversations and correspondences are monitored.

But visiting this man was not Bale’s intent – His sole intent was to pad the idea that freedoms are restricted in China.  But those “restrictions“, in this case, are the exact same thing you would find in the US and most other democratic society.

It is OBVIOUS that neither Bale, nor CNN had any real intention of visiting the man, and that their intent was nothing more than getting what they were after (images of Chinese guards forcibly removing them).

All you have to do is read this quote from the article, and ask yourself one question: “As we retreated, I recognized the ringleader — the same burly man who had hurled rocks at the CNN team 10 months earlier to force us out of the same location.”

Now, ask yourself why (on both occasions) they never followed up by going to the local police and/or government, to ask why they were not allowed in?  Why didn’t they ask to see some form of police ID? (Even in China, people are going to ask to see some form of identification from those who try to pass themselves off as police.)  Why didn’t they? – Either they didn’t try, which shows their ignorance, or they tried and failed (and didn’t report it), showing that they are simply sensationalizing.

Come on Bale… I’ve got a little more brain matter than that.

Just imagine if you will, a van load of Chinese reporters and Jackie Chan rolling up to John Hinckley’s home and jumping out with cameras rolling (without court approval).  Imagine the Secret Service coming out of the woodwork, forcibly removing them and eventually following them as they left the scene.

Would it be right XinHua to post that video and report them as “plainclothes police and local thugs roughing them up” and turning them away?  Would it be a correct report to attribute the actions as those of an oppressive government that restricts freedoms?   Would it be fair for them to use it as a way to indirectly assume that Hinckley was innocent?

Come on people.

If CNN and Bale are out to report this as ‘injustice’… they didn’t even have to leave their own nation to find it.

I think jlrbbns1 (posting on CNN) summed it up quite well with his comment: “Really, what else can I do to help Chen ? Stop making movies in China & paying them to shoot there. Gee there’s an idea!“

Every time there is a climate conference, it seems that the Chinese media starts working over-time to fill the people’s minds with disinformation.

When it comes to this topic, it is almost hypocritical, the reaction I see within China towards the west.  The Chinese media is simply focusing on the surface of the issue, and not making any effort to examine the reasons or the background behind the agreement.

The agreement would require developed nations to accept strict legal limits on pollution.  Some nations, like the US, do not wish to sign up for it.

This is where the Chinese media stops investigating the issue.  And if that is all you see, then you would obviously be upset with the US and other developed nations for their inaction.  However, if we take the time to look a little more closely at the issue, things become a little clearer.

Let’s take a closer look, shall we?

China…

• … Is the manufacturer to the world.
• … Has the fastest growing economy in the world.
• … Is the largest automotive market in the world.
• … Has the largest trade surplus in the world.
• … Has seen its foreign trade grow faster than its GDP.
• … Still relies on foreign trade for half of its economic growth.
• …
• … Is the largest polluter in the world.
• …
• … Still considers itself as a “developing nation”
• … Would not be restricted by the Climate agreement.

Currently, the US has already enacted laws that would reduce the total amount of pollution in the US.  However, China has only created laws that would reduce the rate of pollution growth.

What would happen, for example, if the US were to agree to the conditions of the agreement?  Let’s think about it, shall we?

• - Manufacturers in the US would find themselves being heavily taxed and penalized for pollution.
• - Manufacturers would have to spend billions of dollars on developing even cleaner ways to manufacture goods.
• - Manufacturers would have to increase the price of their goods.

Being restricted in the amount of pollution will cause great development in cleaner manufacturing.  But what is the point of developing cleaner manufacturing, if developing nations are free to keep using the old ways?

We live in a global economy and society – what would be the result?

• - US manufacturers that have not already lost out to China’s devalued Yuan, would lose out because of the new high cost of manufacturing in the US.
• - US manufacturers would either close down or move to China.

What effect would this have on China?

• - It would boost manufacturing in China.
• - It would boost China’s already fast growing economy.

Now, for the most important question of all…
What effect would this have on the ENVIRONMENT?

• - It would have either NO effect, or pollution would actually increase, because of China’s lack of enforceable pollution restrictions.

So, what would we end up with, under this particular climate program?

• Ruined western economies.
• Huge growth in China’s economy.
• The same, or more pollution in the world.

Of course the US does not want to sign up for its own economic downfall.

Of course the Chinese government is eager for the west to sign up for this.

Why else would the largest polluter in the world, China, be so vocal about OTHER nation’s pollution???

Developing nations are using their economic standing as reasons to be exempt from limiting pollution; they feel that restrictions could hurt their economy and development.  If this is perfectly acceptable logic, then isn’t it also perfectly acceptable for developed nations to use the same logic in NOT signing the agreement?

If there were SOME enforceable limitations put on developing nations, which would truly cause a reduction in pollution, while guaranteeing the security of every nation’s economy, you would see the US and every other nation agree to it.

Until that time, the truth is… the BEST thing the US can do to protect the environment, is to NOT sign the agreement.

***Addition***

That picture at the top is of Beijing.  I’ve said it before and I stand by it 100%… In the US, I have lived everywhere from the countryside to the middle of an major industrial city (Detroit), and I have never in my life seen pollution on the scope of what I see in China.

I wish there was an independent world organization that measured pollution; maybe then we might get a better idea of who ranks where.  Until that time, nobody is ever going to make me believe that the US is second to China, without an enormous gap in the amounts of pollution.

This picture is tame compared to many days I have seen in EVERY city I have been in here.  Often times I walk outside thinking that it is dark, because it is going to rain, only to find out that it is strictly smog.   Sometimes it is just a fraction of a second in which you can see the sun shine through it to the point where you realize there isn’t a rain cloud in the sky… just pollution blocking the sky.

I’ll be the first guy to stand up and speak my mind about injustice, and support those who do the same, but what we are currently seeing across the world (known as the “Occupy Movement”) isn’t a protest, it is a jumbled mass of anarchy.

There is no focus.
There is no direction.
There is no point.
There is no commonality, other than the fact that they are “occupying”.

What is their platform?
Who are they trying to speak to?
What are their demands?

These things should be quite simple to answer under the normal circumstances of a protest, but this isn’t a protest – this is simply a bunch of complaining people with nothing better to do.

It annoys me to see people joining in, for the sole purpose of being part of the crowd.  The vast majority of the people at these “occupations” are not their because of their own opinions, they are simply there out of some deranged sense of being part of something popular.

Seeing people run around with Guy Fawkes masks, in the middle of democratic nations, is as ignorant as people wearing Che shirts without knowing a thing about him.

Now all we see are international news agencies covering it as though it is some modern day Tiananmen.  Yes, when people are breaking the law in such a way, and they refuse to move, they will need to be forcibly removed… it is the degree of force that you must look at when comparing the two.  And when you look at the two, there is no comparison.

Take the idiots at the University of California.  Were they protesting the school?  The administration?  Tuition? Exams?  No, they were “protesting” in support of those in the “Occupy Movement”.  They were supporting something that has no direction.  So what was the point of blocking other students from attending classes?  It served no rational purpose.  Could the university give in to their demands?  Of course not, because the “protesters” have no demands and their anger isn’t directed at the university.  How can such a situation be rectified?

If you are not directing your protest at those who have an ability to address your complaints, what is the point?

If you are not going to move, when asked by the police, there will only be one outcome… you will be moved, one way or another.  It didn’t matter if the police hog tied them and threw them in the back of a police car, or pepper sprayed them, causing them to leave on their own… the police are still going to look like the “bad guys”.

The simple fact is this:  These people have only themselves to blame for their economic woes, but like most people – it is easier to blame others than to admit to your own faults.

The banks didn’t strong arm them into buying a house they could not afford.  The car dealer didn’t hold a gun to their head and make them accept a loan for a car they could not afford.  No politician ever sent the National Guard to their homes and force them to take on an extended cable package or mobile service agreement.  NO student was barricaded from researching and applying for scholarships, then held down and physically forced to sign a student loan.  I’ve never opened a credit card application in the mail that was covered with psychotropic drug that caused me to apply for, and use, a credit card.  I’m pretty sure we would have heard about any mind control devices embedded in X-Box or other gaming systems, forcing people to buy them and play them.

While I might agree with some of their concerns, they are not unified and they are not voicing their concerns to anyone in particular, and they are not occupying any location in which their occupation would cause change.  It’s like being upset over a rent increase, and going to your local supermarket to protest.

It seems to me that 99% of them are using only 1% of their brains.

Whenever I see video of the water guns used on people of color in the 1960’s…
Whenever I see video of Kent State…
Whenever I see the城管 dragging elderly women around…
Or when I saw live coverage of the tanks rolling into Tiananmen…

I get so angry I could beat a cop/soldier.

But when I see tear gas, pepper spray, rubber bullets, flash bang grenades being used on these people, it is like watching the police do it to rioting sports fans – I wish I was there to help load the tear gas canisters.

Over the past few years, people have been speaking of the Yuan as an emerging global currency.  While it might seem like a safe bet at first glance, one must look a little closer at what the Yuan represents not only for China, but for the world as a whole.

Since 1980 the trade value of the Yuan has been used as the main source of economic growth in China.  Prior to 1980 the Yuan was appreciating strongly against the dollar, rising to 1.2元:$1.  In 1980 the State depreciated the trade value of the Yuan to 8.25元:$1, and locked it there for 25 years.  During this time the state also had an internal value of the Yuan, which was independent of the trade value.

Obviously this was quite beneficial to China; the government allowed for a manipulated internal economy that was independent of the trade value, while keeping the trade value locked below its largest trading partners.

After 30+ years under this system, China’s economy grew to the point of:

1. Being the second largest economy in the world.
2. Having the largest trade surplus in the world.
3. Becoming the second largest importer of luxury goods.
4. Becoming the largest automotive market in the world.
5. Becoming one of the largest holders of ForEx reserves.
6. Seeing its foreign trade grow faster than its GDP.
7. Having the second largest number of billionaires in the world.

With all of this massive growth over three decades, one would expect to see the value of the Yuan grow at the same rate… it has not.

The Yuan has risen about $0.01 a year, over the past 30 years.

The simple truth is this: 50% of China’s economic growth comes from foreign trade, and its foreign trade sector is growing faster than its GDP.  China depends on the Yuan being weak against the currencies of developed nations; and the government fights to keep it weak.

Currently, the Per Capita GDP of China is lower than that of Cuba (and many other third world nations).  If the Yuan emerges as a global currency, before the Per Capita GDP rises to a place closer to developed nations, it would cause a serious blow foreign trade, and to half of China’s economic growth.  Even given the rate of growth in the Chinese economy, it would still take a century for China’s Per Capita GDP to rise to a respectable level.

And while economic growth has been rapid in China, true development has not been:  The infrastructure of China is still lagging behind, with very little growth over the past 30 years.  Most of the development in China is in personal income for the upper class, and whatever development is needed to pacify them (imported luxury items, housing).  However, when it comes to hospitals, water quality, education, food safety… we all know how little these have developed over the years.

The government of China realizes this, and realizes that its internal economy has only seen nominal growth.  The Yuan is carefully manipulated so that it is beneficial to China, without regard to outside forces or economies.

If the government was willing to depreciate the Yuan 587% against the world standard, strictly to benefit China, what is to keep them from doing whatever they wish, whenever they feel like it?

China has not shown that it can adjust its economy to address and reflect international issues, which is a basic principle required from a global currency.

International currencies of developed nations are not locked into any specific rate, as the Yuan is.  They are allowed to freely rise and fall depending on natural economic factors.  Yes, adjustments are done, but not specifically at the value of the currency itself – Things like interest rates are adjusted to spur or reduce spending.

But those economies are allowed to both rise and fall.  It is the experience of both the good and the bad that creates a strong economy like the US economy.  Obviously, the US economy (and many others) are in a major downturn; but this isn’t the first time, and it will NOT be the last.

During the past 30+ years under China’s current economic plan, there has been no adjustment, simply non-stop growth.  Nobody, not even the Chinese government knows what effect a dip in the economy would do to China – it has not allowed it to happen.

I like to consider China’s current economic plan as a baby bird (China’s internal economy), but one that has been carried by its mother (foreign trade) over the past 30 years, never being allowed to try to fly on its own.  Who knows what would happen to China once it lets go of its mothers hand and tries to fly on its own?  It isn’t that it cannot fly on its own, but until we know if it can, should the global community rely on it?

The Chinese economy is caught in a paradox: Developmentally it is more cost effective to lower the value of the yuan and stay one step behind, therefore creating a massive trade sector and increase in national income.  But if this income is used to truly develop, it would remove any justification for a low valued Yuan.  It is this paradox that is keeping China from developing (infrastructure), while causing massive divides in personal income and creating skyrocketing inflation.

When you remove the simple figure of GDP, and look solely at the Per Capita GDP and income gaps, along side of government debt ($2 trillion dollars in internal debt (20% of its GDP), and $406 billion in external debt (7% of its GDP)), there are far more nations with more appealing currencies.  And just as it is obvious that US debt does not equate to poverty in the US, the large income of China does not equate to wealth.

This is the fundamental flaw that comes when simply looking at the Yuan at face value.  People are not considering the gap between social class, huge inflation, and massive housing issues that are going on in China.

The internal economy of China is not stable, and stability will not be seen for quite some time.  Allowing the international community to consider its currency a standard, without fully understanding this, could lead to major global problems.

Recent global events have also shown how willing China is to involve itself in outside matters.  While it will purchase US debt, to protect its trade flow with the US, Wen Jiabao recently said to Eurozone leaders, “Countries must first put their own houses in order”.

It seems to me that China should also consider those words, when it is pushing for a global standard of the Chinese Yuan.

I’ve written about some of this before, as parts of posts, but I don’t believe I have addressed it as a full post.  I think it is time I did that.

I am for equal rights for all, but being so inclined causes me to be squarely against most of the “Gay Marriage” legislation that has been popping up all over the nation.

The fact that I am against it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs on homosexuality.  It has nothing to do with any religious beliefs on the “sanctity of marriage”.  In fact, sexuality and the practice of marriage have nothing to do with my decision.  It is based solely on what I believe is the hypocrisy that they are creating by trying to attain something that, in itself, is unfair.

Homosexuals are not fighting for the right to be called “married”; they are fighting for those “rights” that go along with it.  However, by attaining those “rights”, homosexuals would become part of a system that rewards people based on decisions that should NOT be rewarded.

They want: Tax credit for being married, group insurance rates, tax credit for children, tax credit for children’s/partner’s education and so on.

For me, seeing homosexuals fight for these rights would be like seeing African slaves fight for the right to be free to own their own slaves.  It’s hypocritical.

Marriage and children are decisions in which economics should be considered before they are made.

Wife, mother, husband, father, partner, working husband, working wife, working partner, housewife, househusband, house-partner, stay-at-home mom, stay-at-home father – These are ALL conscious decisions that are made, knowing right well that it would affect finances.

Why in the world does the government reward those decisions with tax credits and group insurance rates?

I’m not going to buy a dog without considering fact that I need to buy food for it… why would a person marry someone, or bring a child into this world without considering the same thing?

I can understand paying an education tax when I have no children; because it is a social program in which all children partake (including myself at one time).  But why in the world am I paying MORE in school taxes because someone finds themselves with a school aged child?  It seems to me that I should be getting the tax break for making a decision that does not cause an expense to the Department of Education.

Sure, I am for welfare, but not for those who made the decision that put them in need of that welfare.

Let me put it another way: If I (childless and unmarried) made a decision to throw a big party, quit my job, have sex, and buy a car I can’t afford, wouldn’t you call me irresponsible for asking married people to pay some of it?

Seriously, that’s what they are asking me to do, you only have to replace the word “car” with “home”/“child”, and the words “quit my job” with “decided to become a stay-at-home mother/father (housewife/househusband/house-partner)”.

Ok, some of you are probably thinking “well, we didn’t have sex to have a child, we adopted”… well spank my monkey… Isn’t the financial ability to raise a child one of the first qualifications for adopting?

If you are a married couple – did you make the conscious decision to opt out of the marriage tax credit, child tax credit, education tax credit, group insurance, or other yearly tax credits?  Or did you just sigh and say, “That’s great” while you accepted them?

I don’t have those options.

I am a single man who made the decision not to marry and not to have children.  Part of that decision was based on the fact that I am NOT financially stable enough for marriage or children.  Yet I am paying for people who did it anyway.

If you are married and say, “You are not paying for me!”, yet you take those tax credits, YES I AM.  Ok sure, you pay for most of it… let me pin a medal on you while I kiss your ass.  So you are being responsible up to the point where you feel it necessary that I help pay to cover the rest.

So no, I am not in support of another group of people jumping on that bandwagon of unequal rights.

And to the Sean Penn’s of the world – THAT is why I am against it… I’m not a homophobe or religious bigot.  I’m simply being more “open” to the “rights” of ALL people.