What happens in Africa...

While we focus on our economic woes and presidential candidate pony shows... Kenya, which used to be considered a very stable African nation, is in the midst of severe ethnic conflict. Another Kenyan opposition leader was killed. The government says it was an illicit love triangle, the opposition that it was an assasination. At this point, I'm not sure it matters who is telling the truth... perception is that this is quickly denegrating into severe civil unrest.

The top American diplomat for Africa said Wednesday that some of the violence that has swept across Kenya in the past month has been ethnic cleansing intended to drive people from their homes, but that it should not be considered genocide.

Jendayi Frazer, the U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs, is the top American diplomat illuded to above. I feel compelled to ask the question as to what is the difference between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide?" I know the semantics of the argument would be something along the lines of ethnic cleansing has a goal of displacing one group from a definied geographic area while genocide has the goal of erradication of existence... but come on, how far apart are the two? We didn't do anything in Rwanda, we haven't done nearly enough in Sudan, is Kenya the next to get overlooked by American Foreign Policy?

The NYT Board endorses....

Hillary Clinton and John McCain. This should not come as a big surprise to anyone who regularly reads the Board's op-eds. I don't think either piece is a "carrying water" endorsement, but I still get frustrated with the "comeback" term being applied to Hillary in New Hampshire.


In other news, it looks like Kazakhstan gets the last laugh, regarding Hollywood as they have an Oscar nominee, Mongol.

A piece of the Donkey's evolution...

Teach me how to love...

Gore comes out for Gay Marriage...

For those of you who don't troll around Al Gore's site/life and/or the NYT Op-Ed online page, I offer this nice little tidbit. As the post mentions, there seems to be a gradual but steady movement of this issue into the mainstream Democratic Party. I would say there is actually more hope now, as everyone knows Al Gore the post-VP is like unstoppable.

Consistency is a virtue....

The current system of nominating a candidate for the presidency is in a state of disrepair. I have spent a good deal of time considering how this process would best be improved and what its goals should be.* The primary process stems from the early 20th century progressive movement to give people more power over their political parties. This laudable goal has been lost in a whirlwind of electioneering that leaves a large swath of the American public out in cold when it comes to selecting candidates. The preeminent status of New Hampshire and Iowa, the rush to join the Super Tuesday crowd, and the inequities between each state’s method of selecting a nominee have all played a role in distorting the process. These inconsistencies must be addressed if we are to have a nomination process that awards each citizen a voice that is more or less equal to every other citizen.

The first step in sorting out the current mess would be to create consistency amongst the states. There are many areas where a state-by-state approach is understandable and often laudable, but in selecting candidates for a national office a national standard should be expected. The differences between the states currently is both confusing and unfair, as there are open, semi-open, and closed primaries... let alone those damn caucuses. I personally favor a completely open primary process, but also realize there are a number of arguments for each method currently in use. The key here is to offer consistency among the states.

The current calendar offers the worst of both theories on how to best approach the nominating process. The argument for grassroots politics being an important kickoff is belittled by the fact that New Hampshire and Iowa are consistently given this role. The effect of this situation being is indeed grassroots politics, but only from a Hawkeye or Granite State perspective. The second, and I would argue bigger problem is the rash of primaries on Super Tuesday. We don’t get the advantage of having a national primary day, but we get enough of one to wield the remaining states essentially obsolete and to keep the moneyed candidates at the front of what is in effect a national advertising battle.
There has been discussion of a regional rotating schedule, which doesn’t sound completely bad given the current system. I, however, think that regional primaries may have some unappealing results in the form of limiting the candidate pool. For example, if the calendar were set to include a Northeast regional followed by a Far West regional – would a variety of candidates (e.g. Southern or Midwestern) not participate? I would argue that a balanced calendar with two or three states per week max from January through late May would be best. The order of the states would be assigned by the National parties through random drawing in October of the preceding year. Each state would be given equal weight in the drawing. All elections would be held on Saturday (this applies to all elections in America generally). I think that the randomness could help with keeping candidates from starting the campaign on the ground in states on the day after the previous election. I truly believe that this is one of the key problems with the current system, because at that early juncture the media only covers horserace issues – which we get plenty of later in the process.

Awarding delegates on a completely proportional method is alluring and I might just bite on it, if the calendar featured some randomness and was spread out far enough. Additionally, proportional votes should only be assigned if a certain threshold is met (12%?). I would also be supportive of a Nebraska/Maine model of primary nomination process, where by each state assigns its electors by congressional district and the statewide winner takes the two bonus electors. This method is not without problems, but would offer the opportunity for more grassroots politics on a variety of stages.

The overarching need for the primary process is consistency in access, the calendar, and in awarding delegates. Very few (if any) people fully understand the current system. A clearer method of selecting the nominees could offer citizens a chance to feel that their vote will count and that they are fully aware of how the system works. This method of smoothing the calendar over time, would also allow for significantly more grassroots campaigns to make a dent without having developing a war chest for the huge Super Tuesday ad push. There are undoubtedly other options available for cleaning up the nomination process, and I have no problem considering other options. The key is that we live up to the progressive tradition that established primaries in the first place and give the power to choose a party’s nominee back to the people... and not just the people in Des Moines.

* This post was inspired by Mel-Anon's thoughts on this issue.

New Post on Critical Donkey...

Not really critical, but a beautiful blend of film and music.

I wanna hurry home to you!

The Donkey Behind the Times project is lagging -- no thanks to Friedman taking book leave and the NYT adding Kristol to the line-up.

Saturday is election day...

Isn't this a novel concept?

I'm going with Obama in an upset of Clinton in Nevada by a point. I am actually quite interested to see the results of who turns out in this one, as I'm relying here mainly on union power pulling through for Obama. Of course the more well organized (politically) Teacher's Union may keep this in the Clinton camp.

Romney should win Nevada on the GOP side, but like Wyoming, nobody really cares.

The South Carolina Repub primary could be the most interesting, I'm going with Huckabee 33, McCain 31, Romney 15, Thompson 12, Paul 5, Rudy 4.

Happy voting!!!

Friday afternoon media blitz...

1. Today's NYT features a long op-ed on immigration from the Editorial Board. The op-ed comes to the same conclusion that any intelligent being does when discussing this topic:

But it isn’t, of course, because it ignores the fundamental question of what to do about the undocumented 12 million. A locked-down border won’t affect them. There is no way to round them up and move them out all at once. Not even the most eagerly anti-immigration candidate would dare talk about detention camps. Amnesty is a Republican curse word. So what’s the plan?

2. So, President Bush wants to help the economy with government intervention. Isn't it funny how the free-market crowd runs when the debts come due. Of note, is the fact that Bush didn't draw his proverbial "line in the sand" with regards to making his tax cuts permanent -- which shows the fear in the administration of this recession. Of course, it is possible (a big IF here) that he woke up and took the advice of economists on how to fuel the economy:

Most economists agree that tax rebates are one of the fastest ways to lift consumer spending. They also agree that stimulus measures are most efficient when aimed at low-income or middle-income people, because they are more likely than affluent people to spend any extra money rather than save it.

According to estimates several years ago by Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Economy.com, the measures that produced the biggest “bang for the buck” were increases in unemployment benefits, which produced about $1.73 in additional demand for every dollar spent. Tax rebates to all citizens generated about $1.19 for every dollar spent, while reductions in tax rates produced only 59 cents per dollar.

3. From the mongering fear in the minds of liberals department, it seems some Conservatives kind of like Obama. Or was this just a well placed Clinton media connection?

4. The obituary of the week goes to... no, not Rudy's campaign... but Bobby Fischer the crazy as a loon Anti-Semite chessmaster.

5. In the, Economist's are quirky and perverted department -- studies are being done on the business of sex.

Although all speakers at the session were careful not to draw very strong conclusions from preliminary findings, a few broad themes nevertheless emerged. In many respects, the paid-sex industry is much like any other business.

No kidding! The first profession knows about bidness!

6. Don't get me wrong, I've done stupid things while drinking in my life, but not this stupid. I know, I should be showing lots of sympathy and all, but come on -- How hard is to not tease a tiger when drunk and stoned?

7. In local news here in Madison, we are bracing for a freezing weekend, crowned by what should be a sub-zero NFC title game in Green Bay. Go Pack!

Colbert makes it to the Smithsonian...

If there is one thing I miss about not having cable, it's comedy central and the Stewart / Colbert duo. I would really be interested to see how Colbert pulled this off. Colbert's unique blend of comedy is seldom lost with me.

Colbert:

I don't mean to brag, but as it contains three portraits, my portrait has more portraits than any other portrait in the National Portrait Gallery," he said, adding, "All employees must wash hands before returning to work."

Stephen: Now, I’ve never been a fan of amphibians. Not only do the strengthen the argument for evolution, they are nature’s fence sitters. Come on, amphibians. Which is it? Water or land? Pick one, we’re at war.

Bitter Beer Face

So hops are in short supply and it is really hitting the local brewers here in Southern Wisconsin. I have not followed up nationally, but I know I heard a piece on this on NPR in the past few weeks as well. For all of my fellow beer friends, this is definately bad news...

What does the shortage mean for local beer drinkers? Look for a jump in the price of Wisconsin-made microbrew this year, from 50 cents to $2 more per six-pack. Also affecting the price is the rising cost of bottles and grains, including malted barley, which has fermentable sugars that are turned into bubbles and alcohol. "I'm already paying over 20% more for malt and bottles," says Porter.

I am fortunate enough to have enough disposable income to absorb this cost (a big reason is the significant reduction in consumption over the past few years), so it isn't as scary now as it once was. I am, however, concerned about what this will do to the types of beers that are being produced. I enjoy a variety of styles of brew, but my old faves are IPA's, APA's, and other hop monsters. With the current shortage, it is likely we will see less fun experimentation on this front in the near term.

What happens in Vegas...

Or, at this point what doesn't happen in Vegas. Some Clinton supporters are attacking the idea of worker's caucusing at the special casino caucuses. I don't normally dwell on the minutiae of campaign bickering, but I found this quote from former Prez Clinton interesting:

"I think the rules ought to be the same for everybody," the former president told more than 550 senior students at Green Valley High School near Las Vegas. "I would question why you would ever have a temporary caucus site and say only the people that work there, i.e., the people that we know are going to vote in a certain way or we think they will, (are) able to caucus."

Now you can read as little or lot into this as you like, but coming on the heals of the Culinary Union's endorsement of Obama -- I take this to be a late attempt by the Clinton camp to disrupt the plans of likely Obama supporters. I'm not sure how the rules were drawn up for these special sessions, but I know there were some restrictions along the lines of the individual having to work within 2.5 miles of the strip and being able to caucus from 11-1. This is definately a "special" event in the game of caucuses, but I don't see how this would be considered overly burdensome on other possible caucus attendees. Don't read too much into it, but I just think O might make a run at Nevada.

If X happens, I'm moving to Canada...

The popular liberal line of "If X (something related to Bushism) happens, I'm moving to Canada" should be taking a hit among truly liberal minded folks with the current over zealous application of hate speech laws. Greenwald at Salon has a nice post on this issue, of which I found the following paragraph most pertinent.

Empowering the State to proscribe and punish speech is not only the most dangerous step a society can take -- though it is that -- it's also the most senseless. It never achieves its intended effect of suppressing or eliminating a particular view. If anything, it has the opposite effect, by driving it underground, thus preventing debate and exposure. Worse, it converts its advocates into martyrs -- as one sees from the hero-worship now surrounding people like Levant and Steyn, who now become self-glorifying symbols of individual liberty rather than what they are: hateful purveyors of a bitter, destructive, authoritarian ideology.

There is an inherent need in society to place some restriction on speech, but the current line in the sand being applied by the Alberta Human Rights Commission seems to me to be about four beaches over from where it should be. It is my opinion that by silencing these views, a martyr is made. Also, by denying free expression we take away the biggest buffer against ignorant and insensitive statements -- letting the proponent of such a statement open his or her mouth and prove the idiocracy underlying the viewpoint.

Sign of the Times....

The odds are good...

but the goods are odd...

Betting odds... with a cushion for the house.

DEMOCRATS
Clinton 3/2
Obama 5/3
Edwards 16/1
Kuci 100/1

REPUBLICANS
McCain 8/3
Guiliani 8/3
Huckabee 7/2
Romney 8/1
Thompson 15/1
Paul 25/1

On the Dems side, I give a slight edge to Clinton as she has been polling well in Nevada up to this point. I recognize the polling data is being called to question currently, but she also has a nice backdrop of a default win in Michigan (since Obama and Edwards) aren't on the ballot and very likely a default in Florida as well. Those delegates may just end up mattering. Hell Wisconsin's primary may end up mattering as the top two have the resources to keep a dog in this fight.

On the GOP side, I give an even odds favorite status to McCain who is hot and Rudy, who is not -- but he has a big war chest and "national appeal." If he can weather losing Michigan and South Carolina (especially if Romney then Huckabee win) he could come back to roost in Florida. Huckabee has potential, but I don't think his campaign has evolved to the level of some of the others. Thompson may still end up the default nominee if everyone else keeps falling down and he stays asleep at the wheel (which may be the most ingenious strategy yet). Romney MUST WIN in Michigan or he is done. Paul... well if he can mobilize his new found net roots libertarian movement (and keep them from seeing his not so libertarian stances on social issues), he may make some noise... but I doubt it.

Friday afternoon media center...

Did you ever wonder if twins separated at birth could end up married to each other? Apparently they can in England, but unfortunately the article doesn't offer the detail and pertinent subject interviews one would expect from the title.

For all of my completely unreformed communist friends, a bit of bad news on thebusiness front, which you may have missed. This of course is being followed by campaigns going into "It's the economy stupid" overdrive.

In the International department, we have Kenya on the verge of meltdown. Let's hope Kofi can cool this situation down. But with three days of planned protests, Kibaki and his police force are promising a crackdown on these "illegal meetings." I guess Kenya couldn't tolerate the idea that Pakistan was taking all of the international unrest headlines.

In the cheese state, we are concentrating on the big Packers game tomorrow and the possibility/debate as to whether Brett will be back next year.

From the Hitchens Web an interesting interview final copy from black republican. Though I'm not sure I picked up this conflict from Hitchens in October...

and finally, yet another story in the main stream media about a woman teacher having sexual relations with a male student. I admittedly have no data in front of me, but doesn't it seem like we hear about the women teachers doing this much more than the men who do? I'm not sure if this is sexism, sensationalism, or whatever (jealousy by middle aged newsmen?) -- but I'm just not convinced that the rates of incidence are even close between male and female teachers committing sexual assualts on students... I should probably look into this before spouting off --- but hey it's Friday and I think this is just plain ridiculous. (maybe not as much so as the TO CATCH A PREDATOR Dateline specials).

Have a good weekend.

My newest addiction...

Mel-Anon has turned me onto a very addictive geography quiz game, which I highly recommend. As Mr. Anon points out, there isn't a lot of replayability, due to the limited number of cities in the database -- but give it a shot. I would also recommend studying Oceania, and more importantly Australian cities prior to beginning.

My stats after ten Go's at it...

Average Aggregate Score: 520,281
Max Aggregate Score: 577,949
Average "Traveller IQ": 127
Max "Traveller IQ": 133
Average Level Finished: 11.1
Max Level Finished: 12
Average Level 11 (Diabolical) score: 47,739
Max Level 11 Score: 58,955 (I have no clue how I did that).

Have fun, and let me know how you fair.

Special Reports of Note - from the Economist...

My subscription to the Economist has nearly bankrupted my reading time balance each week, but with special reports like this on immigration and this on religion it is probably worth it.

I have long been confused by the "no by-line" motif of the weekly mag, but I have to say after reading cover to cover everything over the past three weeks... I haven't found substantial reason to doubt the writing ability of the staff (the one complaint I always levy on these publications is the lack of thorough criticism, but hey not everyone can be The Atlantic.) A bit pricey, but a distinct and thoughtful viewpoint on a weekly basis -- acts as a solid supplement to the NYT/NPR/CNN/BBC normal newsflow.

New Hampshire's done...

The results are in from the Granite State (or at least 96% of them) and I admit my failed punditry in picking Obama over Clinton.

I honestly thought it would be close, but I didn't think Edwards, Richardson, and Kuci would take home a quarter of the votes. I'm not arguing that any of these candidates should have not been a part of the contest, but if you are an Obama backer you are surely feeling that way today. Of the 65K votes received by these three candidates plus the Dodd, Biden, Gravel votes, Obama only needed to win 55-56% to take the cake. I would postulate that he would come very close to this level of advantage if those other votes would have been forced into a dichotomous choice. Alas, it's on to the true gamble of Michigan.

On the GOP side, my superfecta went well, but it wasn't hard to pick the order. The more interesting thing to me is how close Rudy came to getting Huck for third and the fact that Romney took a closer than I anticipated second. If Mitt can come up with a victory in Michigan (where he is leading) he may crawl back into the race.

I think Nevada and South Carolina could really be a turning point on the Dems side, as Richardson will need to finish second in Nevada to maintain even remote viability and Edwards is very possibly in a must win in South Carolina.

Thinking about viability, who are the likely options for GOP VP? I have my finger on a few Dems, but the Elephants have me confused... This is of course, not unusual.

New Hampshire says....

Obama, Clinton, Edwards

McCain, Romney, Huck, Rudy

should be interesting.

The Audacity of Hope...

So we actually have some votes (more than 200K on the Dems side) upon which to base our future political prognostication. Soon we will even have a one person one vote basis on the Dems side in New Hampshire.* With Obama and Huckabee pulling out clear victories, we now have the potential match up of the author of The Audacity of Hope and the Baptist minister from Hope. Well, I guess Hope does spring enternal.

Huckabee may have won by enough to actually garner some additional resource support, but with the MSM still dogging him as a fluke winner - it will be an uphill battle. Though as Mel-Anon points out South Carolina awaits. He is polling very well nationally and if he can survive New Hampshire he may just cause the GOP to take a truly introspective account of what is going on inside the party.

As far as the Obama campaign goes, the Iowa win was huge. Though I'm not quite convinced we should call it a "defining moment in history" as Obama said in his speech last night.** It is definitely an historic event, but we will have to wait and see if we remember it as a discrete event or as an actual change in direction. The win definitely puts the heat on his opponents, but it also now puts Obama under pressure to keep up with expectations in each successive primary. As any loss to Clinton now will come with a "he has lost momentum" tag line.

As we look forward to the Granite State's primary next week, there are some interesting story lines emerging. Can Clinton recover and pull out a win? Will Edwards hang around for South Carolina, even if he finishes a distant third? Can Rudy keep up the "I don't care about this state" routine for much longer? Will Romney finishing second sink his ship? Can a McCain win push him into the front runner status? When will Thompson go away? Will Ron Paul beat Rudy in New Hampshire too? All very interesting questions, which thanks to the concentrated primary calender we will not have to wait too long to see what happens.

I failed to make a post as to my predictions for Iowa, but I promise my predictions were Obama-Edwards-Clinton and Huckabee-Romney-McCain... which means I only missed the two trifectas by a few votes that Thompson somehow held off from McCain. It is early, but I'll throw in my two cents for New Hampshire as McCain-Romney-Huckabee (with Huckabee closing in on Romney) and Obama-Clinton-Edwards (with the top two taking the lion's share and in a dead heat with around 40% each). The worst I can be is horribly wrong, which is likely.

*What is it with this delegate share stuff in Iowa? I was amazed to see that on a CNN online poll 32% of the respondents stated that they understood the Iowa caucus... They are either way smarter than I (a very real possibility), political organizers in Iowa, unaware of their lack of understanding or drunk. The Democratic process is exceedingly convoluted and confusing. Remarkably, also fairly undemocratic. Oh well, Iowa is old hat now.

** I watched this speech live and I must admit that Obama is a very good public speaker. There were some interesting statements in this speech and I would strongly recommend reading the text. It depends on perspective, but some of the statements, though admittedly politically normal, were a little disquieting (must be the Orwell biography I'm reading). My favorite gem/barb was this: "They said this country was too divided; too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose." A "common purpose" sounds good in some ways and absolutely terrifying in another.

What's the difference...

An interesting post from my comrade Mel-Anon set my political mind in motion. Mel-Anon discusses the recent assualt on the Edwards campaign's populism by Greenspan, Buckley and The Drudge Report. Mel-Anon draws a corrallary between the current battle for the White House and the types of economic policies/punishments used by the global concentrated capitalists in post-apartheid South Africa. This is highligted with a nice selection from Klein's The Shock Doctrine, which is on my must read list. Overall, Mel-Anon concludes that:

The increased viability of the populist candidates Edwards and Huckabee may explain why the wheels are starting to turn faster on Michael Bloombeg's Unity08 run, more truthfully titled the Rich White Guy Emergency Plan. This group certainly fears Edwards more than Huckabee, since the former has the much better chance at winning the general election, and I suspect that, once he has been disposed of by the Corporate Dems, Bloomberg's backers will magically dissolve into the ether. (It's certainly hard to see where Bloomberg fits in a race that includes Hillary Clinton, who's basically pulling the same roots.)

I can see how this conclusion can be drawn, but I tend to see the Unity08/Bloomberg third party run as less of a bail out from potential populists than as a naive belief (somewhat shared in the Obama camp) in a post partisanship position being available in America. I will admit that the Rich White Guy Emergency Plan concept does ring a little true when considering an Edwards v. Huckabee matchup.

It is the parenthetical that really got me thinking and I don't believe I can agree with the underlying assertion that Clinton is Bloomberg is the "normal middle of the road pack mule for corporate capital." I won't argue that Clinton makes the ideal progressive liberal candidate, but I also don't believe putting her (or Obama) in the same boat as the GOP pack or a Bloomberg is correct either. I also won't offer a defense of Clinton saying she isn't intertwined with corporate interests and money, but I find it either overly idealistic or incrediably naive to not recognize that a good deal of this money has went the Dems way due to corporations knowing which way the wind blows. I would be quite suprised to see anything revolutionary out of the Clinton or Obama camps, but I do believe that either is a significant improvement over the current administration and a better selection for America's next four years than any of the GOP candidates or a Bloomberg third party run. That being said, however, I do not want to fall into the "lesser of two evils" trap that is often used in modern two-party politics. Let us hope that whoever the nominees for both (or more) parties, that they are able to clearly articulate a plan for recovering from the many difficulties left at their stoop by the current administration's attempt at completely discrediting and dismantling government through a whirlwind of ineffectual management, underfunded services and agencies, tax cuts without spending cuts and complete a lack of accountability.

*** Wouldn't it be a little strange though, if Rudy, Bloomberg and Clinton were all in the race against each other? I agree that the thought of that does smack of candidate selection bias.

(over)Consuming can be (un)sustainable...

A quaint little wake the hell up op-ed appears in today's NYT. (This should probably appear at DBT, but hey AM Donkey is in need of some copy). Diamond, who in unrelated news speaks 12 languages, pulls few punches in criticizing the West (i.e. Europe and America) for it's development policies that are shortsighted and fail to recognize a need for a new sustainable direction. In both relative and absolute terms, Americans (and other westerners) consume a lot of stuff (according to Diamond an average of 32 times as much per capita as the developing world). Diamond seems to indicate that the American model is worse due primarily to the overconsumption and wasteful use of oil.*

Not surprisingly, the developing world wants to be able to have the lifestyle achieved in the developed world. Unfortunately, these countries are following the American (and to some extent European) development model. The problem here is that both of these models worked primarily due to two factors that are (barring a scientific breakthrough in one and hopefully in the other) not likely to be repeated: Manifest Destiny in America - with infinite land and resources for a relatively small population, and colonialism in Europe. The problem is that the West has failed to realize that it didn't make it to where it is from these unsustainable methods -- and has taken to proselytizing it's methods through the IMF, WorldBank and WTO. So what's the problem? Well to bring out a little of the old "swamp" metaphor...

People in the third world are aware of this difference in per capita consumption, although most of them couldn’t specify that it’s by a factor of 32. When they believe their chances of catching up to be hopeless, they sometimes get frustrated and angry, and some become terrorists, or tolerate or support terrorists. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it has become clear that the oceans that once protected the United States no longer do so. There will be more terrorist attacks against us and Europe, and perhaps against Japan and Australia, as long as that factorial difference of 32 in consumption rates persists.

It seems that at some point the developed world will have to realize the implications of the overconsumption of Earth's resources and consider how to reign these patterns in, but of course we could just continue to decry the global ruination that is being cause primarily by China and India**...

*So speaking of consumption, let's see if the symbology of oil hitting a bill a barrel will do anything to change our consumption practices... doubtful. A more likely wake up call will be the $4/Gallon costs that are very possible if the continued rise in demand is maintained into next year... this is more likely given the growth of oil consumption in Asia.

** This is not to discount the problems being created by the overly lax policies in developing countries, which are often exceptionally shortsighted and should be seriously reconsidered. An excellent article on China is available at Mother Jones