People wonder why I am so critical of universities, professors, and similar Galaxy Brains when it comes to China and there are a couple of reasons. Let me explain. First, these people are the height of hypocrisy. The same people and institutions who will criticize 1/n
Everyone and everything absolutely will not do the same on China. Saudi Arabia? Israel? The Military? The GOP? All awful. The PLA and the CCP? Shrug what are you going to do, let's work with those guys. Second, they demand of others what they refuse to demand of themselves. 2/n
Look at how much they criticize companies, countries, politicians, and political parties for working with China. Then look at the universities that turn over management of their campus in China to a CCP selected leader and member. Then look at the CCP princeling sitting 3/n
In their class paid for with tuition money from corrupt dealings. Look at how they criticize banks and investors but refuse to follow US law on disclosing foreign donations or KYC regs on who they are admitting to their own universities. If you want to be a leader, you lead 4/n
By example first and foremost. Third, they are excellent at complaining but have offered absolutely no remotely plausible solution to deal with their problems other than the university retread of the VW talking point: engagement and change through trade. Seriously, the same 5/n
people who are saying let's string bankers up with their fingernails are saying "it was honest mistake to omit millions of dollars in funding from the CCP." This really isn't a problem. Renaming the "China Initiative" is really what's needed. Rename the China initiative as 6/n
as long as it catches the mice for all I care. The reality is these people still do not grasp the most basic facts about how the game and methods have changed. They don't understand how their China campuses are run by the CCP. How classes in the US have China monitors. 7/n
They don't get how you can't have business as usual. They don't get that the China center at your elite university is literally funded by the CCP ending your ability to say what you want. I believe in the value of the university and professors pushing the envelope. 8/n
What I do not believe in is universities staying silent because they know their finances will get wrecked by China if they take a stand on a sensitive issue. I do not believe in turning over your foreign campus to a hand picked CCP cadre. I do not believe in taking CCP money 9/n
to fund your China center. I do not believe in pretending you can bring change through trade and engagement like VW as your justification to hopefuly get tenure on that paper. You don't have to like the reality where we find ourselves. That's completely fair. The reality is 10/n
Just screaming racism non-stop divorces you from the obvious reality of how the world has changed. Put forth reasonable ideas about how to unpack these difficult issues that China is clearly using to attack the US and Americans of all ethnicities. Doing nothing is not a solution.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Due to the fact I am not working in academia and that academics are spouting such absolute self serving gibberish about the Lieber China case let's review the key points and lay ruin to the bull dung being slung. First, Lieber was not charged with "espionage" and the case 1/n
Was about lying on income taxes, concealing foreign assets, and lying about foreign contacts on official documents. So when you read an academic say things like "The US government hasn't proven he was a spy" they might as well be saying "The government hasn't proven he 2/n
was a purple dinosaur" because the case had nothing to do with proving espionage any more than it had to do with purple dinosaurs. Second, there is no espionage here because to the best of my knowledge Lieber never had or conducted research requiring security clearance. 3/n
A fundamental of a color blind society is whether two individuals or groups of different racial or ethnic background are treated in similar ways before the law and in society. As some are so lightly throwing around charges if racism around any thing looking critically at 1/n
China's involvement in key US institutions let's take the MIT example and use an existing comparison to see if charges if racism stand up. For many years, Russian individuals and institutions have been involved with MIT and Boston technology firms. In the second Obama 2/n
Adminstration (not blaming at all only for dating purposes) MIT and Boston had numerous notable involvement with Russians from a notable kleptocrat stepping down from the MIT board of trustees to the FBI very publicly taking about Russian attempts to purchase sensitive 3/n
The Foreign Affairs piece on Xi's New World Order: Can China Remake the International System? is finally moving in the right direction but Galaxy Brains have a long long way to fully grasp the problem and understand how to respond to it. Follow me a second 1/n
The piece lays out very realistically how China is changing the world for the worse if you believe in democratic liberalism. There are three problems with the piece. First, China already has REMADE the international system. That is fait accompli. The piece does not go far 2/n
Enough recognizing how cooked the frog is. The UN, WHO, WTO, on and on are under effective Chinese control and this was the result of work that started decades ago, not a year or two ago. Second, this same exact piece could have been written two years ago and except updating 3/n
This is the original WaPo trash piece about whether Biden gets more negative coverage than Trump. Let me explain why it is trash and warn you now this has near zero to do with anything partisan so just warning you now 1/n washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/…
Sentiment analysis is a run of the mill tool, and there are different flavors out there, that seems to classify a language dataset as more positive or negative. The WaPo article doesn't specify which one they used but I'll assume it's one of the standard ones and no funny biz 2/n
It sounds complicated but what it does, (oversimplifying here), is count up positive and negative words and then calculate whether the article was more positive or negative. Different flavors can tweak the calculation in different ways that are pretty accepted but pretty 3/n
In addition to Biden lobbying the Biden adminstration for Coke, wrap your mind around that for a minute, there is a bigger issue at play here journalists will never understand. So key me break it down for you 1/n
The Uyghur forced labor bill basically treats all products produced in Xinjiang as coming from the fruit of forced labor and therefore sanctionable when traded internationally to the US subjecting the firms not just to product loss but penalties. With me so far? 2/n
So ask yourself: why is Coke lobbying AGAINST the Uyghur Forced Labor Act? They have no bottling plant in Xinjiang. They don't export Coke from China to the US (I mean we aren't that fat). So why does Coke even care about the Uyghur Bill? They are acting directly at the 3/n
I see lots of people gasping outloud at this "exclusive" when it is really a great big yawn though I know journos wouldn't know or understand the difference. Let me explain 1/ reuters.com/technology/exc…
First, we know that China has had facial recognition in cameras for many years. Second, we know China has had a vast network of surveillance cameras in urban areas and increasing into rural areas for years. Third, by the transitive property and by databases we have obtained 2/n
We know that China can watch targeted individuals in real time as they walk across a city for instance. Fourth, within these databases the facial recognition system not only links to individual information such as id number, passport number, facial measurements etc. 3/n