China's Controlled Media

Here is a link to a translation of a blog describing the huge gap between Chinese and Western perceptions of the Tibet uprising.

The German woman is pretty ignorant, so I won't discuss that side much, but the Chinese author is proud and naive. He is thouroughly informed by China's state controlled press, and he believes every word. To get a sense of the bias of China's media, you need to compare the Chinese reporting to that of the West. It is usually not as strong as it is made out, but there are cases where there is manipulation or suppression. It is of course overt in this case.

Does he really believe these people are risking their lives without any legitemate grievances?

And if the situation in Tibet was as China's media portrays it, it should be to China's great advantage to expose it to the world.

But there are larger implications of a controlled press that are disturbing. First, the Chinese government has demonized Tibetan culture as part of their propaganda campaign. The blogger writes about past tribal rituals like requiring human skins as gifts, as if that justifies suppression of an entire culture. Demonization of a minority is especially sensitive in a country like Germany which has a ghastly history of that. This is tantamount to institutional racism and should be condemned more strongly than the authoritarian suppression of a semi-violent uprising.

Second, while China's rise has thus far been peaceful, there will come a time when their technology will be equal that of the West, and their industrial production will be larger. The balance of power must shift, and the issue of Taiwan, which is veiwed by China as a foreign occupation of their land, will be viewed as an attainable military objective. If the Chinese media remain state controlled, thier attitude on Taiwan would surely be aggressive. And that will likely lead to world war. They would quickly take Taiwan by force. The West would sanction and blockade. They would need to invade their neighbors for resources, etc. I do not know who would win such a war, but it is armageddon for sure.

So again, if we have to pressure China on it's authoritarianism, press freedom is a more important issue than democracy.

Pee in a Cup

I recently applied for a job through an agency. They said all of their placements have to authorize a criminal background check and take a drug test. I don't have a problem with a background check, and I think employers are wise to do that, but I do have a problem with the drug test. Passing it is not an issue. I do not even use alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine. But it is a matter of principle. It's a terrible invasion of privacy. If the job involved operating heavy machinery or something dangerous, that would be fine, but what I, or my coworkers do in their own time is none of the employer's business. Not to mention the possibility of secretly screening for health insurance liabilities.

I told the agent ambiguously that I might have an issue with that. We proceeded to schedule an interview with the client. I aced the interview, which was with the sole proprieter, so I knew I had leverage. I asked generally if certain requirements were his, or just the agency's. He said "you mean the drug test and backgrounder? That's the agency". Apparently he had been forewarned.

So when the agency called back, and explained the details and tried to send me a contract, I figured they would just forget about the tests. But they didn't. Apparently it would get them in trouble if they tested some, but not others. I sensed this would not be an issue, so I declined the offer.

I called back the client, who called the CEO of the agency, and they made an arrangement where the client just pays a finder's fee, instead of me being employed by the agency as a 'consultant'. As it turns out, the client had done that before for someone who could not pass a pee test. It's fun to use the invisible hand to slap big brother.

Disclaimer: Don't try this at home unless you can afford to miss that opportunity.