Mediaboss Marketing

Lee Teng-hui Ph.D. 68, the former president of Taiwan who led the islands transformation out of authoritarian rule and ushered in democracy, died Thursday in Taipei. He was 97.

Lee, who was the first president to be elected by popular vote and the first native Taiwanese president, received his Ph.D. in agricultural economics from Cornell before joining the Nationalist Party as its agricultural minister. From then, his political career took off as he became mayor of Taipei, the capital, and the provincial governor of Taiwan.

He was appointed the vice president in 1984 by President Chiang Ching-kuo a departure from the usual appointment of mainland Chinese people and a gesture toward the native Taiwanese. When Chiang Ching-kuo died in 1988 of a heart attack, Lee succeeded him.

Lee had first entered politics during the dictatorial Nationalist Party regimes of Chiang Ching-kuo and his father Chiang Kai-shek a period of martial law and brutality. During the February 28 incident in 1947, when Chiang Kai-sheks troops open-fired on street protesters and killed 28,000, Lee joined the protests.

He then renounced Marxism and joined the Nationalist Party, but as president he publicly rebuked the February 28 massacres and dismantled the dictatorship.

Throughout Lees 12-year tenure as president, he consistently angered the Beijing government, insisting on Taiwans sovereignty. The United States ended up torn by Lees stance, as it sought to improve relations with Beijing and deter Chinas military presence on the island.

In 1992, The New York Times called Taiwan the most democratic society in the Chinese-speaking world. And in 1996, Taiwan held its first open presidential election and elected Lee outright.

Lees ties to the U.S. through two academic stays a masters degree in agricultural economics from Iowa State University and his Ph.D. at Cornell also concerned the Beijing government.

Courtesy of Cornell University

Lee visiting Cornell in 1995.

In 1995, Lee visited the U.S. for a Cornell reunion, where he delivered the annual reunion Olin Lecture to an audience of about 3,000. During his speech, he spoke of reliving fond memories at Cornell, the prevailing American democracy, Taiwanese popular sovereignty and U.S.-Taiwan relations.

Lees visit, which the Beijing government openly opposed, led China to accuse the U.S. and Taiwan of collusion, resulting in a military demonstration that strained U.S.-China relations.

Lee remained involved with his alma mater. In 2001, he visited again to see his granddaughter, who was attending Cornell. Although his granddaughters name was not known to the public, she gave one interview to The Sun while at Cornell.

The 2001 visit was again a controversial one, marked by a Ho Plaza rally involving the Chinese Students and Scholars Association and hundreds of activists from as far away as Purdue University and Harvard University.

History proved that Lee is most interested in taking advantage of Cornell Universitys fame for the purpose of his political propaganda, read a letter presented at the rally, intended to protest Lees separatist ideas and efforts, as well as his visit to Cornell.

We dont believe this is a private visit because after Lees retirement he has still tried to promote separatist ideas wherever he is, Rony Chen grad, spokesperson for CSSA, told The Sun at the time.

During that visit, the University announced the establishment of the Lee Teng-hui Institute for scientific research. At the announcement, Lee said he hoped the research at the institute would develop not only new, but ethical technologies, ones that benefit world peace and further human progress.

The Lee Teng-hui Institute was to be located in the new Duffield Hall. In honor of Lee, a consortium of companies in Taiwan made a substantial financial contribution toward the construction of the facility and to support instructional and research programs of the college.

This was the second of Lees large donations to his alma mater: A 1994 donation of $2.5 million presented anonymously by friends of Lee in Taiwan endowed the Lee Teng-hui Professorship of World Affairs.

Lee is not the only Cornellian to ever hold Taiwans highest office: Current President Tsai Ing-wen LL.M. 80 was elected in 2016.

Tsai, Taiwans first woman president, served as Lees national security adviser and participated in negotiations for Taiwans membership into the World Trade Organization in the 1990s. He supported her in her bid for president in 2012, when she ultimately lost to the Nationalists Ma Ying-jeou.

The president believes that former President Lees contribution to Taiwans democratic journey is irreplaceable and his death is a great loss to the country, Tsais office said in a statement.

Read the original here:
Former Taiwanese President and 'Father of Democracy' Lee Teng-hui Ph.D. '68 Dies at 97 - Cornell University The Cornell Daily Sun

Amid all the troubles occupying our attention, one of the more worrisome is also one of the least visible. It is the loss of public faith in the effectiveness of our representative democracy.

While most state and local governmentsand certain federal agencieshave maintained public support during the pandemic, concern over our system as a whole is palpable: that it has trouble responding to the countrys needs, is resistant to reform as society evolves, and continues to perpetuate inequality, social immobility, and basic unfairness when it comes to creating more opportunity, liberty, and justice for all.

These deficiencies corrode our unity and effectiveness as a nation. Americans increasingly divide themselves into different, often warring, political and cultural camps. Instead of working to create one out of many, they sort themselves into like-minded communities. They narrow, rather than expand, their sources of news and information, seeking those that reinforce their views. These days, we often live in different worlds from one another.

Politicians have played a significant role in this. Some, including the President, are bent on stoking division. Many play to their parties bases. And some, at both the state and federal level, do their best to narrow the public support on which government rests by making it difficult for everyone whos entitled to vote to cast an actual ballot.

To be sure, there are plenty of efforts in many communities to work against these trends, to expand participation and build connections, and to decrease division. Still, the challenge we face as a nation is to revitalize our democracy and its institutions. We need to strengthen representative democracy by restoring the effectiveness of government, rebuild Congress as a functional, co-equal branch of the federal government, and restore confidence in our institutions, public and private.

How do we do this? Calls for greater public participation and involvement are on target, but not enough. While Im always encouraged by political leaders who seek to involve the public and by civic groups that try to enhance and encourage citizen participation, I believe were at the point where we need to repair our frayed institutions and push back against the forces that divide us.

We are, after all, the United States. Our name expresses an ideal. So, for that matter, does the course of our history, which over time has trended toward expanding inclusivity and opportunity for all. One place to start is to appreciate our history and take inspiration from that history: to recognize where weve fallen short, but also to highlight the remarkable progress weve made and the efforts of committed citizens that made it possible.

We also need to recognize that divisiveness weakens us, and that efforts to reknit American society are now urgently important.

To that end, proposals for a year of national service strike me as particularly welcome. This would be expensive but focusing young Americans on a year of shared endeavor with others from vastly different backgroundsin the military, in AmeriCorps, in internships or public-service opportunitieswould help meet many needs and be well worth the expense.

We also need to up our game as ordinary citizens and beat back the drivers of divisiveness and polarization as we work to strengthen our communities.

Among other things, this means making an effort to seek out alternative points of view in the media and paying attention to objective, factual reporting. It means supporting measures that bring us together, such as bringing young people from all backgrounds and perspectives to work side by side in projects for the public good. And it means being thoughtful about our engagement: voting for candidates focused on pulling us together and working for the common good and putting our time and effort into causes that bring us together rather than pull us apart.

In short, we must decide what we can do in the voting booth and in our own neighborhoods and communities to revitalize our representative democracy. Our aim is to make our communities and our country better places to live: more creative, inclusive, and welcoming. The answer lies not in the stars, but with all of us.

Lee Hamilton is a Senior Advisor for the Indiana University Center on Representative Government; a Distinguished Scholar at the IU Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies; and a Professor of Practice at the IU ONeill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Original post:
All of us need to help revitalize our democracy - Herald Review

VATICAN CITY (CNS) Human lives and jobs are not the only things threatened by the coronavirus pandemic: In many countries, democracy and efforts to build a more just world also are under attack, said Father Arturo Sosa, superior general of the Jesuits.

Democracy can be one of the victims of the pandemic if we do not take care with our political condition, Father Sosa told Vatican News. At this time, for example, many governments -- including so-called democratic governments -- are taking the path of authoritarianism.

Advertisement

The interview was published on the eve of the July 31 feast of St. Ignatius of Loyola, founder of the Jesuits. Pope Francis, also a Jesuit, joined Father Sosa and his confreres for a feast-day lunch at the orders headquarters near the Vatican.

In the interview, Father Sosa said many governments are using the pandemic as an excuse to restrict or end their assistance to migrants and refugees, which is a great mistake if we want to make the world more fraternal and just.

[Dont miss the latestnewsfrom the church and the world. Sign up for our daily newsletter.]

To discriminate against migrants would be and is a great danger and would be a sign of a world that we do not want, he said.

The Jesuit superior said he also is concerned about how some businesses are using the pandemic as an excuse to fire workers or reduce salaries and benefits, including for health care.

In other words, the pandemic is an occasion to take steps forward or to take steps backward, he said. And we must be very aware of this as the Catholic Church and as people committed to justice and peace so that we can build a more welcoming, more democratic society.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by Americas writers and editors.]

Inspired by St. Ignatius, he said, Jesuits and other Catholics know that being close to the poor is always important, but especially during this pandemic.

If we are not capable of looking at the world up close, sharing the point of view of the poor, which is the point of view of the crucified Jesus, then we will make mistakes in our decisions, he said.

The heart of the Ignatian experience and, therefore, of Ignatian spirituality, is a personal and profound encounter with Jesus Christ, crucified and risen, which leads to such a familiarity with God that one can find him in every thing and every moment, Father Soso said. That intimate relationship becomes a source of true freedom because it helps a person be fully available to do only that which God desires, without attachments to any person, place or institution.

Read this article:
Jesuit superior warns of pandemic's threat to democracy - America Magazine

As experts sound the alarm about rising COVID-19 cases in Africa, Tanzanias President John Magufuli has a very different message. In Magufulis telling, Tanzania is free from the virus and tourists should feel confident about visiting the country. To ensure that the public will take his word for it, official data on the number of positive cases has not been released since the end of April, part of a pattern of hiding, or tightly controlling information that in most countries can be accessed and interrogated without incident. Since his election in 2015 on an anti-corruption platform, Magufulis penchant for eliminating or suppressing discordant narratives has proven toxic to his countrys democracy.

Brave Tanzanians continue finding ways to speak out about the shrinking space for discourse and dissent in their country. Outsiders, including UN human rights experts, have spoken out about the persecution of journalists, civil society leaders, and opposition politicians. They note that the governments crackdown has escalated in recent weeks, with reports that an opposition leader was attacked by unidentified assailants, the arrests of eight opposition members for alleged unlawful assembly, the suspension of a newspapers license, and a police raid on training organized by the Tanzanian Human Rights Defenders Coalition.But neighboring states are largely silent about the countrys increasingly authoritarian direction.

More on:

Tanzania

Elections and Voting

Sub-Saharan Africa

Coronavirus

In this climate, its difficult to be optimistic about the upcoming October elections.The legal context in which opposition parties operate has changed, limiting their capacity to mobilize voters, and major civil society organizations have been disqualified from observing the polling.In Zanzibar, where citizens civil and political rights have been denied multiple times in the context of elections, the voter registration system has only added to citizens'mistrust of the process. The stage increasingly looks to be set for an election that serves the interests of the current leader, but erodes popular trust in democracy itself.

More on:

Tanzania

Elections and Voting

Sub-Saharan Africa

Coronavirus

View post:
Troubling Trends Threaten What Little Trust Remains in Tanzania's Democracy - Council on Foreign Relations

Does Facebook have too much power?The scale of internet platforms such as Google and Facebook is unprecedented in the tech world and, I would argue, unprecedented since the Dutch East India Company. They are ubiquitous in almost every country that has an economy. And when you are ubiquitous, the political imperative is to align with power.

And that is why in countries such as the Philippines Facebook has been used to marshal public opinion in support of death squads. In Cambodia, it is being used to suppress dissent. In Myanmar it was used to incite ethnic cleansing. Thats what happens in authoritarian regimes.

In democratic regimes, these companies are actually more powerful than the government. Because they are so ubiquitous, that they can use their users as a human shield politically, to prevent any kind of change. So what you see is the defiance of subpoenas in the UK and Canada. And pre-Trump, and even early into Trumps reign, they defied Congress.

Facebook, in particular, has more monthly users than there are notional adherents to Christianity. Roughly twice as many as there are people in China. And when your numbers are that big, your ego can sometimes give you the illusion that you are a nation state.

In practice, in the US, how does this work?Facebooks approach can be explained by the way [Facebooks chief operating officer] Sheryl Sandberg took to recruiting a government relations team. Google has people that lobby both parties and it spends more money than Facebook, but it tries to do so in a way that is discreet. Facebook hired rightwing operatives such as [ex-Bush aide and energy lobbyist] Joel Kaplan. Someone made the point that Kaplan was hired to lobby Republicans but in reality it appears hes been more successful lobbying Facebook. Kaplan has got Facebook tightly aligned with the Trump administration. Kaplan even got involved in the Brett Kavanaugh supreme court nomination.

Is there a risk for Facebook in aligning itself closely with Trump?The trick when youre doing political lobbying is not to take up a position so extreme that if your side loses you cant come back from it. I dont know whether Facebook has gone too far to the right. Only time will tell. Zuckerberg has met privately with Trump on two occasions without any prior notice the second time was only discovered because of leaks. Is he doing that with Biden? I dont think so.

Did Facebook win the 2016 election for Trump?The 2016 election was incredibly close because of a series of factors which would have been hard to predict. But in the end, if you look at voter suppression of suburban white women, black people, and young people who had voted for Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries by the Trump campaign on Facebook and Instagram in the states which Trump had to win, then more than enough voters were discouraged from going to the polls to make the difference. Social media can do this by, for example, running ads which show long queues or disturbances at voting stations, or messaging creating apathy about the democratic process. It took nine things happening before that for that factor to matter at all, but it was really important. So Facebook had a lot to do with Trump getting elected. There were no rules then that said you couldnt use social media to suppress votes.

Facebook approached it like engineers. They said: Wow, these guys are willing to commit their whole budget. So theyre willing to let us run the experiment of whether we can get this to actually work. Wow, this is cool.

It never occurred to them that doing it for one side and not the other might be an ethical problem. It never occurred to them that doing so might actually lead to consequences for the country that would be hard to recover from. Remember, this is a company that had the motto move fast and break things. But when you apply move fast and break things in politics, the things youre breaking are the lives of everybody in the country.

The value system of internet platforms, but especially Facebook, is a threat to whatever remains of democracy in the US.

If Biden wins in 2020, do you think hell make any attempt to reform or regulate these platforms?I wrote an open letter that was published in Wired. It was triggered by President Obama suggesting that Biden should work with Eric Schmidt and Reid Hoffman two of the absolute architects of the current internet culture. And my basic message is, go ahead, take their money, work with them on the campaign, but you cannot work with them on technology policy. And you have to recognise that the thing that made these guys so successful and that makes them valuable to you in the campaign makes them singularly unqualified to help you out there.

Ive had several people connected to the Biden campaign say my article is going like wildfire.

Having politics take place on social media has given the social media platforms enormous power. And so, when you look at hate speech, disinformation, conspiracy theories, if you take them out, the level of engagement on these platforms goes way, way down and with it, their economic value. Hate speech, misinformation, conspiracy theories, that is the lubricant for their business.

They would claim theyve taken steps to reduce that type of contentEvery time theres pressure on them to either eliminate a bad actor like Alex Jones, or to take down a piece of bad information like something on the pandemic or Trumps looting shooting post, they take down the bare minimum.

When you take out a few things and leave everything else up, it creates the illusion that everything else is OK. These people have shown no willingness to self-regulate, no understanding of the responsibilities they have to society. Its time for society to take matters into its own hands.

So how should social media be regulated?There are four categories: safety, privacy, honesty and competition.

Safety has two elements. First, no tech product should be shipped until it demonstrates safety and freedom from bias; and if that fails, the penalties should be huge. Second, in the US, we have a safe harbour for internet platforms called Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. I would like to amend it so that any company that does not treat all content identically loses the protection of Section 230. So this goes after the algorithms that amplify content such as hate speech, disinformation and conspiracy theories disproportionately, giving political power to the most extreme voices.

It is a very small change. It doesnt say you cant do algorithmic amplification, but if you do it you are under threat of legal action. And there have to be real teeth. You have to give everybody the right to sue. They have to be able to sue for explicit financial rewards, even for things that dont normally have a financial price. For instance you could put a price on revenge porn which gets amplified like crazy.

The second category is privacy. There I would like to follow the Shoshana Zuboff model of treating private data as a human right, as opposed to an asset. Thats a big leap from where we are. So the starting point is to move to an opt-in model GDPR and the California Computer Privacy Act, are both opt-out, so all the burden is on the consumer. I want to reverse the burden and place it on the people who use data, transfer it and so on.

Third, honesty. Google and Facebook have an oligopoly power over ad networks. The industry suspects that many of the ads they are paying for are never seen. If thats true it means the revenues are overstated, which would be a securities law violation, which may give rise to a felony, which would have jail time associated with it. That would change incentives very rapidly.

Last, competition. The US economy is horribly concentrated but in this industry it is particularly damaging. So I want to revive the three core antitrust laws in the US, which have been allowed to become essentially moribund. I want to get back in the business of encouraging entrepreneurship, encouraging innovation, because these guys have they stopped all that. A Biden administration has the opportunity to address of all this.

View post:
Roger McNamee: Facebook is a threat to whatever remains of democracy in the US' - The Guardian