just out from send-tray
my personal view of governments, and that be all governments bar except the obviously comical and not exactly efficacious philippines government, is that they be all better if ever smaller.
my own perspective is that in the great grand scheme of econo-political history (and that be all history unless we consider religion to be somehow neatly separated from econo-politics), and i generally prefer that i am not somehow directly wrapped up in the events, the way people change governments has consequences of own, and not all expected. the final verdict on the which approach is more effective, for the grand scheme, is still out.
i am absolutely against someone, anyone, telling me that they are in charge, per mao of china, lee of singapore, by force or subterfuge, or hitler and marcos, by ballot box.
i am also biased against universal suffrage, because all are not equal, and most are by definition unfit to decide.
as i am not big all on governments, and do not in fact know how best to be placed under rule, the disneyland scheme of hong kong suits me o.k.
for china to go democratic ala sun yat-sen's vision may work, or may just end up with a messier still version of ... pick our choice, marcos philippines, nazi germany, ... or more likely, putin russia or anytime india. i just do not know, and so what is is. china raises the finger to politicians ocasionally, and whenever so, quite thoroughly in a deeply cleansing way, and in every sense, more satisfying to the participants that come on top, and less fortunate for the folks trampled over on the bottom.
as to each iteration of politicians booting out the previous iteration by will of universal suffrage in the usa, i am deeply suspicious, because that experiment was instigated by necessity in newly stolen land long ago where, unless all are more or less equal, chaos would have reigned supreme, and more because the experiment is still very young, and done so far under ideal conditions in happy isolation by means of two large oceans in face of no particularly true competition per 20/20 hindsight. events are evolving and conditions are changing, and now the experiment must truly experiment. i am not certain what the outcome would be, but so far the trend is not at all promising, a state of is, of course to do with the nature of the electorates. i remain hopeful for the best, but have discounted quite a bit even if not all.
so, thankfully sitting in freedom hong kong and small government kowloon, we watch china experiment, and guard the experiment by cracking google, and we see america experiment, and guarding the experiment by cracking everything. one may have a commercial motivation, the other may have a dire terror imperative, but from where i sit, the line is very thin and can be drawn everywhich way, depending on day of week and month of year.
i am also early-fretting that the freedom citadel hong kong may not hold, and should such be the case, where then to? i just do not know; not yet.
will the day soon dawn where hong kong refugees need to converge on switzerland, or will the swiss first find that they need to migrate to hong kong.
perhaps you can tell, or always knew, i like to worry.
as to whether goog permits or not, let us just say goog should not permit, but no one is asking for permission. a killing drone in pakistan, a killer-app code segment in silicon valley, permission does not come into the equation, only national imperatives. so, again, i figure goog is now tee-ed up as cyber warrior on international scene, flavored with econo / national security / evangelical / trade flow herbs and spices. we are now into drama on the big stage.
as usual, i get excited by drama and am thrilled about thrillers. i tend to hold off on the right and wrongs, because i have seen much everywhere on personal basis of right and wrong, and am inclined to believe that all government-sponsored, induced, or otherwise backed undertakings are wrong, a priori, should one wish to put a label on it, even should one wish to weigh the relative wrongness and degree of transgression, which i tend not to do.
however, given the serendipitous confluence of interests in china, america, and in truth, everywhere else, should the drama be 10% responsible for even if miniscule amount of trade / fund flow, we have perhaps the consequential flapping of the butterfly wing in the amazon.
whereas i may have been an early alarmist over the past 10 years, i am suspicious that my so far still relaxed attitude "that globalization will survive" may well be wrong.
i have discounted more than the median but i have not taken account of total breakdown.
i do not know what full disengagement or even close to full disengagement between china and usa would usher in, but figure it would be more so than divorce usa-japan, and separation russia-usa.
in any case, drama on the big expensive stage. let us watch n brief.
|
