"smile or die": the false promises of positive thinking

It's all about being positive:
Jay Doubleyou: positive power and influence
Positive Thinking - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or is it?
The Powerlessness of Positive Thinking - The New Yorker

Here's a book review from a couple of years ago:

Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World by Barbara Ehrenreich

Jenni Murray salutes a long-overdue demolition of the suggestion that positive thinking is the answer to all our problems

The Observer , Sunday 10 January 2010

Some of the 15,000 participants in the 2005 Playtex Moonwalk around Hyde Park, London, to raise money for the breast cancer charity Walk the Walk. Photograph: onEdition

Every so often a book appears that so chimes with your own thinking, yet flies so spectacularly in the face of fashionable philosophy, that it comes as a profoundly reassuring relief. After reading Barbara Ehrenreich'sSmile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World, I feel as if I can wallow in grief, gloom, disappointment or whatever negative emotion comes naturally without worrying that I've become that frightful stereotype, the curmudgeonly, grumpy old woman. Instead, I can be merely human: someone who doesn't have to convince herself that every rejection or disaster is a golden opportunity to "move on" in an upbeat manner.

Ehrenreich came to her critique of the multi-billion-dollar positive-thinking industry – a swamp of books, DVDs, life coaches, executive coaches and motivational speakers – in similar misery-making circumstances to those I experienced . She was diagnosed with breast cancer and, like me, found herself increasingly disturbed by the martial parlance and "pink" culture that has come to surround the disease. My response when confronted with the "positive attitude will help you battle and survive this experience" brigade was to rail against the use of militaristic vocabulary and ask how miserable the optimism of the "survivor" would make the poor woman who was dying from her breast cancer. It seemed to me that an "invasion" of cancer cells was a pure lottery. No one knows the cause. As Ehrenreich says: "I had no known risk factors, there was no breast cancer in the family, I'd had my babies relatively young and nursed them both. I ate right, drank sparingly, worked out, and, besides, my breasts were so small that I figured a lump or two would improve my figure." (Mercifully, she hasn't lost her sense of humour.)

I had long suspected that improved survival rates for women who had breast cancer had absolutely nothing to do with the "power" of positive thinking. For women diagnosed between 2001 and 2006, 82% were expected to survive for five years, compared with only 52% diagnosed 30 years earlier. The figures can be directly related to improved detection, better surgical techniques, a greater understanding of the different types of breast cancer and the development of targeted treatments. Ehrenreich presents the evidence of numerous studies demonstrating that positive thinking has no effect on survival rates and she provides the sad testimonies of women who have been devastated by what one researcher has called "an additional burden to an already devastated patient".

As Ehrenreich goes on to explain, exhortations to think positively – to see the glass as half-full even when it lies shattered on the floor – are not restricted to the pink-ribbon culture of breast cancer. She roots America's susceptibility to the philosophy of positive thinking in the country's Calvinist past and demonstrates how, in its early days, a puritanical "demand for perpetual effort and self-examination to the point of self-loathing" terrified small children and reduced "formerly healthy adults to a condition of morbid withdrawal, usually marked by physical maladies as well as inner terror".

Smile or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World by Barbara Ehrenreich | Book review | Books | The Observer
Smile or Die by Barbara Ehrenreich: review - Telegraph

Here is Barbara Ehrenreich at the RSA:



Acclaimed journalist, author and political activist Barbara Ehrenreich explores the darker side of positive thinking.
Watch the full lecture here: http://www.thersa.org/events/video/ar...
The RSA is a 258 year-old charity devoted to creating social progress and spreading world-changing ideas. For more information about our research, RSA Animates, free events programme and 27,000 strong fellowship.

RSA Animate - Smile or Die - YouTube
RSA - RSA Animate - Smile or Die

Here she is at a TED talk 'speaking against positive thinking':



Barbara Ehrenreich is an American feminist, democratic socialist, and political activist who describes herself as "a myth buster by trade". She is a widely-read and award-winning columnist and essayist, and author of 21 books. In 2006, she founded United Professionals, an organization described as "a nonprofit, non-partisan membership organization for white-collar workers. Her last published book is "Smile Or Die: How Positive Thinking Fooled America and the World", and during her talk she shared her views on the topic.

Smile or die: Barbara Ehrenreich at TEDxZaragoza - YouTube
Watch "Smile or die: Barbara Ehrenreich at TEDxZaragoza" Video at TEDxTalks

But Barbara Ehrenreich is not 'miserable':
Barbara Ehrenreich - Dancing in the Streets A History of Collective Joy
Review: Dancing in the Streets: A History of Collective Joy by Barbara Ehrenreich | Books | The Guardian

On the other hand, we could be ironic:
Jay Doubleyou: a history of irony
.
.
.

kate tempest poet

A brilliant 'young' poet (she's not yet 40) is Kate Tempest:
Kate Tempest - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kate Tempest
pennyspoetry.wikia.com/wiki/Kate_Tempest

She's been at this year's Exter Poetry Festival:
Kate Tempest | Exeter Poetry Festival

She's presented programmes on the BBC:
BBC Radio 3 - Between the Ears, More than a Desert

Kate Tempest: the performance poet who can't be ignored

Kate Tempest – the first person under 40 to win the Ted Hughes award for innovation in poetry – explains how hip-hop, rap and raves led her to write an hour-long spoken story set to music

Kate Tempest: the performance poet who can't be ignored | Stage | The Guardian

Poet and rapper Kate Tempest brings us an epic spoken tale of the everyday Gods. Accompanied by a live quartet of violin, cello, percussion and tuba, Brand New Ancients is the story of everyday epics and small heroics.

Brand New Ancients by Kate Tempest - YouTube
Brand New Ancients On Film - Part 1 - YouTube

More extraordinary performances on video:
Kate Tempest, performance poet (video) - Late Night Live - ABC Radio National (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

You will know Shakespeare's Tempest:
Al Pacino-merchant of venice.mp4 - YouTube
The Merchant of Venice (Summary) - YouTube

Here is Kate Tempest rapping Shakespeare's Tempest:
Spoken-word synopsis | Royal Shakespeare Company | Theatre
www.rsc.org.uk/downloads/rsc_mer_synopsis_kt_2011.pdf

And:
teaching-resource/the-merchant-of-venice-2011
the-merchant-of-venice-a-spoken-word-synopsis-by-kate-tempest

See also:
Jay Doubleyou: shakespeare
Jay Doubleyou: performing poetry
.
.
.

futures on the bbc

The BBC's got some stimulating stuff looking to the future:

Tomorrow’s world: A guide to the next 150 years

• Technology
• Health
• Science & Environment
• Future
• Infographic
• Prediction

As we begin a new year, BBC Future has compiled 40 intriguing predictions made by scientists, politicians, journalists, bloggers and other assorted pundits in recent years about the shape of the world from 2013 to 2150.

BBC - Future - Tomorrow’s world: A guide to the next 150 years

Here are some more ideas - in 60 seconds:
BBC - Future - 60 Second Idea

Or in two minutes:
BBC - Future - Head Squeeze

BBC - Future - Byte-sized graphic guide to data storage
BBC - Future - Infographic

.
.
.

every song has its lesson plan - part two

Stevie Wonder's song 'Superstition' makes a great lesson:
Jay Doubleyou: every song has its lesson plan

As does Beyonce's song 'If I Were a Boy':
The English Smelter: Beyoncé - If I Were A Boy

Which is great for practicing the conditional:
Beyoncé “If I Were a Boy” 2nd conditional song | $trictly 4 my T.E.A.C.H.E.R.Z

Again, from ESL Printables:
English teaching worksheets: If I were a Boy

And the Lexical Approach:
If I were a boy (Beyoncé and the Lexical Approach) | Sandy Millin



Beyonce-If I were a boy(lyrics) - YouTube
Beyoncé - If I Were A Boy (GRAMMYs on CBS) - YouTube
.
.
.

"the modern office rewards narcissists and psychopaths"

A study from last year suggests that to succeed in business, you have to be more than just tough:
The Disturbing Link Between Psychopathy And Leadership
Why your boss could easily be a psychopath - Telegraph
Horrible bosses: New study shows that modern offices reward narcissism and psychopathic behaviour | Daily Mail Online

Are CEOs and Entrepreneurs psychopaths? Multiple studies say “Yes”

October 1, 2013 by Desh Kapoor 5 Comments

Either it is the sign of our times, where success is almost akin to mental sickness, or our generation has a rather unfair share of mentally sick individuals.  Because some of the findings on the world of business seem rather strange.

A news research study by Australian School of Business at the University of NSW suggests that psychopathic tendencies can also make for good entrepreneurs.  The behavior of psychopaths and entrepreneurs is not very different.  Their modus operandi seems seems very similar in how they handle things.

“Psychopaths commit an offence, go to prison, then come out and commit the offence again, because they fail to learn from the prison experience,” said PhD student Benjamin Walker.  “Our study showed the novel result is that participants high in entrepreneurial intentions showed the same pattern.”

This particular research comprised 605 participants across three laboratory studies.   Mr Walker and Professor of Business Psychology Chris Jackson found that people with either psychopathic or entrepreneurial intentions persisted through adversity in a risk-taking task in a very similar way.

But this study is not the only one which suggests that entrepreneurs or those at the helm in business have psychopathic tendencies.  Even British journalist Jon Ronsonhas discussed similar findings in his latest book discussing the psychopathic tendencies of the CEOs.

British journalist Jon Ronson immersed himself in the world of mental health diagnosis and criminal profiling to understand what makes some people psychopaths — dangerous predators who lack the behavioral controls and tender feelings the rest of us take for granted. Among the things he learned while researching his new book, “The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry”: the incidence of psychopathy among CEOs is about 4 percent, four times what it is in the population at large.

In another study psychologist and Executive coach Paul Babiak found that One in 25 Business leaders are psychopaths.

One in 25 bosses may be psychopaths — a rate that’s four times greater than in the general population — according to research by psychologist and executive coach Paul Babiak.

Babiak studied 203 American corporate professionals who had been chosen by their companies to participate in a management training program. He evaluated their psychopathic traits using a version of the standard psychopathy checklist developed by Robert Hare, an expert in psychopathy at the University of British Columbia in Canada.

There was a time when successful and rich people were known by the amount of charity they did for the society.  But it seems that as the stock markets rule the world of business and what the CEOs do every day and every month, traits insincerity, lack of truthfulness and lack of remorse and shame become second nature.

Traits of psychopathsdefined below.

The following characteristics of a psychopath, defined by Hervery M. Cleckley in 1941 in the bookMask of Sanity include:

• Superficial charm and average intelligence.
• Absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking.
• Absence of nervousness or neurotic manifestations.
• Unreliability.
• Untruthfulness and insincerity.
• Lack of remorse or shame.
• Antisocial behavior without apparent compunction.
• Poor judgement and failure to learn from experience.
• Pathological egocentricity and incapacity to love.
• General poverty in major affective reactions.
• Specific loss of insight.
• Unresponsiveness in general interpersonal relations.
• Fantastic and uninviting behavior with drink, and sometimes without.
• Suicide threats rarely carried out.
• Sex life impersonal, trivial, and poorly integrated

Are CEOs and Entrepreneurs psychopaths? Multiple studies say “Yes”

7 Reasons Why Psychopaths make Great Managers

What do you think of when you think of a psychopath? Hanibal Lecter? Serial killers and axe murderers? Then you would be in good company.

But being a psychopath in the workplace is no bad thing, according to the recently published book ‘The Wisdom of Psychopaths’ by Professor Kevin Dutton a research psychologist at Oxford. In fact, he says that psychopathic traits can make for a very successful manager – assuming the manager can keep his or her more antisocial psychopathic impulses under wraps.

Here are 7 reasons why psychopaths make great managers:

1. They are charming: charm is an essential ingredient in business success – charming people make more friends, they get more business opportunities, and important people are more likely to remember them.
2. They have charisma: Psychopathic personalities
   have the ability to captivate and inspire an audience – a hugely important
   leadership quality.
3. They are fearless: They will stand up for their
   beliefs and forge ahead regardless of what the risks may be and what others
   think of them.
4. They are persuasive: Persuasion is a key indicator of leadership success, from persuading the cleaner to make the lobby extra sparkly for some important guests through to presenting ideas to and gaining agreement from peers and senior executives.
5. They are ruthless: Psychopaths take what they want and stop at nothing to achieve their goals. They are focused and, more importantly, feared. Fear lasts longer than love in the workplace – sad but true.
6. They lack conscience: Basically they don’t care that they are ruthless and do not lose any sleep at night over people they may have upset – if they have even noticed they have upset anyone, of course.
7. They are narcissitic: Psychopathic personalities know what they want (to be the leader), they strongly believe they are the best person for the job, and they have no doubts whatsoever that they should be in charge; they are confident, assertive, and focused on self-interests. They have great visions and achieve them. It’s argued that many of the revered leaders of the technological revolution are narcissists – think Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

Of course, remember that all research points to the fact that managers are made, not born – so don’t despair at your career opportunities if you lack the psychopathic edge – you can still aspire to a senior management role with the right personal development and training!

7 reasons why psychopaths make great managers

A book came out some years ago on the same subject:

Let's say you're about to hire somebody for a position in your company. Your corporation wants someone who's fearless, charismatic, and full of new ideas. Candidate X is charming, smart, and has all the right answers to your questions. Problem solved, right? Maybe not.

We'd like to think that if we met someone who was completely without conscience -- someone who was capable of doing anything at all if it served his or her purposes -- we would recognize it. In popular culture, the image of the psychopath is of someone like Hannibal Lecter or the BTK Killer. But in reality, many psychopaths just want money, or power, or fame, or simply a nice car. Where do these psychopaths go? Often, it's to the corporate world.

Researchers Paul Babiak and Robert Hare have long studied psychopaths. Hare, the author of Without Conscience, is a world-renowned expert on psychopathy, and Babiak is an industrial-organizational psychologist. Recently the two came together to study how psychopaths operate in corporations, and the results were surprising. They found that it's exactly the modern, open, more flexible corporate world, in which high risks can equal high profits, that attracts psychopaths. They may enter as rising stars and corporate saviors, but all too soon they're abusing the trust of colleagues, manipulating supervisors, and leaving the workplace in shambles.

Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work: Amazon.co.uk: Paul Babiak, Robert D. Hare: Books

But the idea resurfaced after the 2008 crash:
Psychopaths 'flourish' at top of corporate ladder -- Science of the Spirit -- Sott.net

A movie soon after made the same point:

On Your Head: Psychopathic and narcissistic: you should go far

Adrian Furnham Published: 26 January 2014

Kevin Spacey plays an egocentric executive in Horrible Bosses (John P Johnson/Warner Bros.)

ARE you passive-aggressive? Are you deeply resentful of successful people? Do you have low emotional intelligence? Don’t worry — there are many jobs out there where these characteristics are essential for success.

Passive-aggressive means you never express your hostility and resentment directly. It means being sullen and negative. And you might find it huge fun to bait others who are more successful than you. The pleasure of making the rich and powerful wait is unalloyed joy. Make them suffer for their success; get even.

The story is the paradox of your dark side. Most people, particularly when frustrated, exhibit the symptoms of personality disorders — arrogance or scepticism, avoidance or emotionality. Those studying the surprising number of chief executives who fail and derail are often surprised by the pathology they find. And what is most odd is that their dark side helped them climb the greasy pole of corporate life in the first place.

Again and again, two conditions are implicated in the derailing of very successful people in business: narcissism and anti-social personality disorder.

Narcissism is characterised by a sense of entitlement — the belief that you are made for leadership, especially talented and entitled to exploit others for your own end. It is also characterised by adolescent self-absorption and self-admiration — the belief that you are special and totally worthy of adoration.

Pathologically over-confident managers really believe in themselves. They have no doubt that they are unique and that there is a reason they are on this planet. They are often fiercely competitive and love getting to the top and enjoy staying there. They have no trouble visualising themselves as the hero, the star. They are certainly good at accepting praise gracefully and with self-possession, but they often have an emotional vulnerability to the negative feelings and assessments of others, which are deeply felt.

On the bright side, narcissists can be good at delegating, good at team building and good at delivering. They can also be good mentors and genuinely help others. However, subordinates soon learn that things go wrong if they do not follow certain rules.

The dark side of narcissistic managers is that they tend to have shallow, functional, uncommitted relationships. As they are both needy and egocentric, they tend not to make close, supportive friendships in the workplace. They can often feel empty and neglected as a result.

Next, the psychopath. Psychiatrists now talk about the “successful psychopath”, once called the “industrial psychopath”. They have identified two core factors: “fearless dominance” and “impulsive anti-sociality”.

The first reveals itself in seeming immunity from worry, stress or nervousness. These people are bold and thrill seeking. They have a sort of social zest — a need to take charge, push ahead. They thrive in poorly regulated sectors and are often called in to “kick arse” and do some “slash and burn” management. Their lack of conscience helps them a great deal.

More alarming are the characteristics of impulsive anti-sociality — huge unreliability, a failure to learn from experience, and lying. These people act on whims and want immediate gratification, whatever the cost. Psychopaths are both callous and interpersonally manipulative.

There is often a lot of anger in the successful psychopath. They ruminate on revenge and show significant displaced aggression, meaning they see aggression in others when it is within themselves. They also have criminal tendencies: stealing, lying, cheating — everything from bigamy (surprisingly common) to impersonation. But, worse, there can be violence, often associated with the movie-character psychopath.

However, successful psychopaths are not only able to survive, but to thrive in the business world. They prefer situations of great change and flux with little monitoring. They happily exploit the trust and naivety of good people, cheating them out of everything they have, from their fortune to their self-respect.

So the City beckons and rewards clever, articulate, handsome, narcissistic psychopaths. But what about the sour, less attractive and minimally socially skilled passive-aggressives?

You don’t have to deal with many public sector agencies to know where they thrive. Would any reader like to list the top 10 jobs for these people?

Adrian Furnham is professor of psychology at University College London

On Your Head: Psychopathic and narcissistic: you should go far | The Sunday Times

In fact, to what extent is the company or corporation 'psychopathic'?

Psychopathic behavior[edit]

Legal Scholar and Professor of Law at the University of British Columbia Joel Bakan describes the modern corporate entity as 'an institutional psychopath' and a 'psychopathic creature.' In the documentary The Corporation, Bakan claims that corporations, when considered as natural living persons, exhibit the traits of antisocial personality disorder or psychopathy. Also in the film, Robert Monks, a former Republican Party candidate for Senate from Maine, says:

The corporation is an externalizing machine (moving its operating costs to external organizations and people), in the same way that a shark is a killing machine.

—^[3]

Criticisms of corporations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
.
.
.

ambiguity in politics - part two

Authoritarian governments are always uncomfortable with 'ambiguity':
Jay Doubleyou: ambiguity in politics - hong kong

The Chinese government has been very intolerant of its top artist WeiWei:
Jay Doubleyou: art
Jay Doubleyou: architecture

On the other hand, authoritarian governments might welcome 'ambiguity' - as long as its their ambiguity...

The writer of 1984 and Animal Farm, George Orwell, was very critical of the way in which politicians manipulate language:
Jay Doubleyou: eschew obfuscation
Jay Doubleyou: plain guide to english
Jay Doubleyou: the poetry of english

However, propaganda, public relations and advertising are often very unambiguous in the messages they give;
Jay Doubleyou: propaganda, public relations and manufacturing consent

Meanwhile, there was a very controversial 1960s study on personality and how it affects attitudes to politics. To quote completely out of context:

The whiny kids tended to grow up conservative, and turned into rigid young adults who hewed closely to traditional gender roles and were uncomfortable with ambiguity.

God And Mike Huckabee Heart The Pootin - Page 2 (politics)
Articles: Do Bratty Kids Turn into Conservatives or Liberals?

This research was based on theories of the 'authoritarian personality' and a very influential book:
Authoritarian personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Authoritarian Personality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Which then begs the question of which type of person goes into politics:

Block points out in the study, "Ironically, the sheer variety of changes and improvements suggested by the liberal-minded under-controller may explain the diffuseness, and subsequent ineffectiveness, of liberals in politics where a collective single-mindedness of purpose so often is required."

03.23.2006 - Study linking preschool personality to political orientation draws wide attention

In other words, Chinese communists are conservative - and conservatives might well be rather supportive of Chinese communits:
Why are conservatives now siding with Communist China?
New Statesman | Hong Kong's pro-democracy movement is a challenge to all of Asia's autocrats
.
.
.

ambiguity in politics - hong kong

Hong Kong seems to be erupting:
BBC News - Hong Kong protests: Tension mounts at office stand-off
Hong Kong protests: China warns of ‘unimaginable consequences’ if demonstrations continue - Asia - World - The Independent

How much of this is due to HK's 'ambiguous' position?
HONG KONG’S EXTERNAL RELATIONS: AMBIGUITIES AND OPPORTUNITIES OF CHINESE FOREIGN POLICY
Amazon.com: Hong Kong, China: Learning to belong to a nation (Routledge Contemporary China Series) (9780415426541): Gordon Mathews, Eric Ma, Tai-Lok Lui: Books
The HKSAR governance, ambiguous patron-client relationships embedded in the “One Country, two systems” framework | Raphaëlle Roffo - Academia.edu

Here's a good overview from a couple of days ago:

Are the Protestors Justified? A Short Legal History

Democracy in Hong Kong is a very touchy subject.

The British got control of Hong Kong from China in the late 1800s though a series of treaties, one of which was a 99-year lease that expired in 1997.

The British, as a colonial power, gave Hong Kong a large number of freedoms and political rights (which turned a barren island into one of the world’s great economic centers), but Britain stopped short of giving it full universal suffrage.

The expiration of the Hong Kong lease in 1997 led Britain and China to sign a Joint-Declaration of the Hong Kong handover. The declaration enforced the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, wherein Hong Kong would become part of China but Hong Kong’s capitalist economic system and way of life would remain unchanged for 50 years. (Nothing is said about what happens in 2047.) Hong Kong’s “Basic Law” was drafted and the Joint-Declaration affirmed that it would serve as a sort of constitution for Hong Kong during those 50 years. The final ‘interpreter’ of the Basic Law is China’s Standing Committee.

Hong Kong Basic Law Article 45 states in part:

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the Central People’s Government.

And:

The method for selecting the Chief Executive shall be specified in the light of the actual situation in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and in accordance with the principle of gradual and orderly progress. The ultimate aim is the selection of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.

So Hong Kong didn’t have full democratic elections at the time of the handover, but the Basic Law provided for them. But there was ambiguity over when they would happen and how it would occur. But notice and remember the final clause, “upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee in accordance with democratic procedures.” The Basic Law requires candidates for Chief Executive to be nominated by a nominating committee.

In 2004 popular Hong Kong opinion was in favor of holding full democratic elections in 2007, ten years after the handover. But China ‘interpreted’ the Basic Law to prevent universal suffrage before 2012.

This launched a debate and negotiation over when China would allow universal suffrage. The pro-democracy groups pushed for as soon as possible, fearful of what might happen when the 50 year window was up. Pro-China groups stated a preference for 2017.

Not surprisingly, the pro-China groups won. In 2007, China decided that:

the election of the fifth Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in the year 2017 may be implemented by the method of universal suffrage

That sets the stage for the current protests. China announced that a ‘nominating committee’ would select two or three candidates that Hong Kong could then vote on. China said that in keeping with the “One Country, Two Systems” principle, the candidates would have to love both China and Hong Kong.

This is the announcement that sparked the current protests. But it’s not immediately clear that China violated the spirit of the Basic Law. As we saw above, the Basic Law already required a nominating committee. And it’s easy to see how the election of a strongly anti-China leader would violate the “One Country, Two Systems” principle: Hong Kong would essentially be violating the ‘One Country’ aspect of that while China upheld the ‘Two Systems’ aspect.

Of course, pro-democracy supporters in Hong Kong fear that China has gutted their promise of real democracy and replaced it with the illusion of democracy.

This issue raises the essential contradiction at the heart of a ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle: one country can’t be ruled by two systems if the systems ever disagree. The Basic Law and the Joint-Agreement are inherently ambiguous. That works fine until one side wants a crisp definition, for that forces the underlying disagreements out into the open.

The fairness of China’s measures could in large part depend on how ‘broadly representative’ the nominating committee is. China says that the nominating committee will be chosen the same way as the current Election Committee is, which is a sort ofElectoral College, whose members come from economic sectors. “The New York Times wrote that sectors that were politically closer to Beijing, such as traditional Chinese medicine, were over-represented in proportion to their share of the population, when compared to sectors deemed hostile, such as social workers or lawyers.” So that makes some people think the nominating committee won’t be ‘broadly representative’. But until we see the committee and the candidates it selects, we just won’t know whether China is fully abiding by it’s agreement.

Summary

In sum, it’s not obvious that the protestors are fully justified. China certainly isn’t giving pro-democracy supporters what they want, but China also isn’t obviously breaking any promises or violating Hong Kong’s Basic Law.

The real problem is that Hong Kong’s Basic Law is an ambiguous attempt to prop up the contradictory ‘One Country, Two Systems’ principle. The pro-democracy protesters fear China is trying to break the ‘Two Systems’ part, while China fears the pro-democracy protesters are trying to break the ‘One Country’ part.

The Hong Kong Protests | Wielding Power

This will have wider effects:

October 2, 2014 2:52 pm

Silencing Hong Kong would harm democracy everywhere

By Wang Dan

China’s attitude to the Occupy Central movement highlights a changing policy, writes Wang Dan

©Getty

T

he people of Hong Kong have waited for 17 years, but have yet to see universal suffrage. For many, a political cyclone infused with feelings of depression, anxiety and helplessness has condensed into a sense of despair.

With little hope of short-term gain, tens of thousands of citizens have occupied central Hong Kong and joined an uncompromising public protest against Beijing. Neither side seems likely to back down...

The strengthening of China’s economy and the mentality of a rising great power have emboldened the ambitions of the Communist party leadership. A new blueprint is gradually emerging; one that envisages the possibility of a new global campaign. China is not about to take charge of a Soviet-style campaign of militaristic adventure. This time the slogans will not be based on the traditional concepts of socialism or communism. Instead they will be packaged around more ambiguous language – the “Chinese model” and “the rise of a great power”. China’s economic achievements will be held up as evidence for the idea that the concentration of power can achieve great things.

The aim of this expansionism is to propagate, however gradually, Beijing’s own style of development and system of values. This ideology, in a nutshell, elevates the primacy of economic growth and a strong state over democracy and human rights. These are the fundamental reasons why China’s policies towards others are growing tougher and tougher.

For this reason the Occupy Central movement is not merely a matter for Hong Kong. It is also an issue for China, an issue for Taiwan, an issue for overseas Chinese and an issue for the civilised world. The silencing of Hong Kong would intensify the authoritarian tendencies of the Communist party, and this will harm democracy everywhere, starting with Taiwan.

The writer was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and is now based in Taiwan

Silencing Hong Kong would harm democracy everywhere - FT.com

There's also the problem of history:

Beijing has also thumbed its nose at Britain, because what it has done contradicts the spirit, if not the letter, of the undertakings given in 1997 at the time of the handover of Hong Kong. In addition, the Chinese authorities have made the brazen demand that the British parliament abandon an inquiry into political developments in Hong Kong by the Commons foreign affairs committee. This inquiry, Beijing says, is a “highly inappropriate act which constitutes interference in China’s internal affairs”. We could reasonably reply that China has broken the promises it made.

The Guardian view on China’s rejection of open elections for the leader of Hong Kong | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian

There is a French saying that “one only exits ambiguity at one’s own disadvantage”. This is exactly the situation in which Xi Jinping and his colleagues now find themselves. The 1984 agreement on the return of Hong Kong, with its 50-year lease for “one country, two systems”, was always ambiguous. For one thing, it pushed the final arrangement 50 years into the future – the very same method that Deng Xiaoping used to defuse the island issue with Japan, which has now blown up in both countries’ faces. 
Moreover, the terms of the agreement were highly ambiguous about the changes that could be made during the transition period (the British are in part to blame for only making a stand for full democracy in the final years before 1997, but it is doubtful that they could have obtained more from Beijing in any case).  

Hong Kong Central vs. China’s centre | European Council on Foreign Relations
.
.
.