I wrote this article two years ago but I think it is just as relevant today, if not more.

I had just finished a quick two-week teaching gig in a hectic Chinese suburb called Jinhua and I was on my way to Hangzhou to visit a friend of mine. The Chinese have a saying: shang you tian tang, xia you su hang – “above there is heaven, below there is Suzhou and Hangzhou”. Hangzhou was the capital of China a thousand years ago during the Song Dynasty, the Golden Age of China. Hangzhou is well known for its abounding natural beauty, gorgeous women and hot, humid heat.

Upon meeting my friend she hooked me up with a dormitory room to stay for the night. I would be sharing it with two Chinese students. When I first entered the room it was empty, so I just placed down my bags, took a shower and split. After dinner with my friend I came back to the room and met my two bunkmates for the night. One of them excitedly exclaimed that he knew I would turn out to be a foreigner because I had so much stuff (and I thought I had packed light!) Their English names were Draco and, interestingly enough, Galaxy. They told me they didn’t want to choose “ordinary” English names.

Within a few minutes after the introductory formalities I had a feeling that I might have a good yuan – “predestined relationship” – with these two. They told me, in a very Chinese fashion of modesty, that their English wasn’t good. They attributed their lack of proficiency to an ignorance of American culture but that they were eager to learn. I told them they should ask me about anything they like, then I threw out this disclaimer: “But I don’t really like American culture. I think it’s too materialistic.”

We almost immediately started chatting about Deng Xiaoping’s liberalization of the economy in 1978. I was astounded by their openness and readiness to discuss such an academic matter. After all, we had just met. Deng allowed businesses and individuals to have freedoms which were previously forbidden under Mao’s rigid Communist ideology, helping China to rapidly become the economic powerhouse which we regard it as today, as well as lifting millions out of extreme poverty. Galaxy told me that he thought such policies were good for China because they raised the standard of living for the Chinese, although he thought they should slow down the growth within a short period, mainly because of the drastic side effects of such rapid development. Draco, however, was more cynical. He was wary about this “so-called freedom,” as he put it. It turns out their English wasn’t too bad, by the way.

They listened with fascination as I told them what really happened at Tiananmen Square in 1989, about the student protests and the government-led massacre. They told me that despite the government suppressing anyone from having open dialogues about it and that their parents never discussed it with them they still retained their suspicions.

Not wanting to give them false information, I took out a pamphlet I’d acquired from some pushy Falun Gong members at the LAX airport in Los Angeles a few weeks previous: “The CCP [Chinese Communist Party]: A History of Violence.” They scoffed when they saw it was from Falun Gong but they read it anyway. Despite its questionable source, perhaps it was closer to the truth than anything they’d known.

“Why do they scoff at Falun Gong?” I wondered. I told them that I didn’t know much about it but that I did know that it was surrounded in controversy.

“Falun Gong is crazy,” said Draco. “They don’t go to doctors when they get sick.”

I told them about Veggie Heaven in Austin and about all the Falun Gong “propaganda” that cover their walls and windows.

“They are probably controlled by the Falun Gong,” he answered.

“You mean the Falun Gong paid for the opening of the restaurant?” I asked.

“Maybe, but I meant Falun Gong controls their minds.”

“Why do you think the CCP is so concerned about Falun Gong?”

I already knew the answer to this. Throughout China’s long history, it has been religious uprisings that have continuously posed a threat to the dynasties and governments. The CCP represses organized religion and definitely is not happy about a “cult” that boasts of millions of members, claiming to have even more than the CCP itself.

“Because they threaten the CCP’s power. Any government would do the same.”

“What about the pictures in Veggie Heaven depicting people being tortured and beaten in the street?”

“It’s not true. That doesn’t happen.” He believed that although the CCP has killed a “few” Falun Gong members, they only do what is minimally necessary to maintain their power to ultimately keep stability in the country. “Falun Gong people hurt themselves. It’s justified that the government controls them,” he said.

I asked Draco if maybe that what he claimed to know about the Falun Gong was similar to his knowledge of the Tiananmen Square incident, in that many truths had been censored and distorted by the government. He seemed annoyed by this question so I didn’t press the issue. By this time it was past midnight and they had to wake up early for class, so we all said good night, turned out the lights and retired to sleep.

In no time at all the Chinese desire for the material comforts of capitalism became dangerously apparent. I was being eaten alive by mosquitoes. The shoddy sealing of the walls and windows was more porous than the US-Mexican border. No matter which way I tossed and turned, no matter how I covered myself with my inadequately sized blanket, the mosquitoes would not stop. My arms, shoulders, neck, ears and face were all covered with itchy bites. After nearly an hour of vainly suffering in silence, I noticed that Galaxy was tossing and turning too.

“Psst. Are you awake?” I whispered.

“Yes.”

“Are the mosquitoes biting you too?”

“Yes!”

Then Draco shot out of bed. We were all being bitten. We turned on the lights and started swatting at them. I almost broke my bedpost because I angrily smacked two gigantic ones. Soon we were all out of our bunks, hopping around the room like mad, making sure every last one of them was dead. We each must have killed at least twenty. My hands were gooey with blood and exoskeleton. At this point I realized that the red spots all around the room on the walls and ceiling weren’t part of a bad paint job. I asked them if this was the first time that this had happened here.

“We just moved in.”

State0 Blog’s Interview with Piryx Co-Founder and CXO Naveed Lalani (Video). From the State0 Blog website:

Naveed Lalani is a Founder and the CXO of Piryx. Piryx is an Austin startup that offers services for political, non-profit, and government organizations. They have tools for tracking campaign contributions, fundraising, paperwork, and compliance. Piryx started as a contract firm doing work for local political campaigns. I have often read it is not good to start a product company by self funding through contracting because you get pulled into supporting and doing work for your clients too often. However, it seems to have been a perfect fit for Piryx, probably because all of their clients were in their target market.

Naveed is also involved with Texas Ventures, a UT organization that promotes student entrepreneurship. If you visit enough Austin startup events you will eventually run into him. His specialty is experience design. If you have a design problem you are wrestling through maybe you should drop him a line.

Enjoy the interview. The sound is a little low so you may need to up your volume.

New Leaders Council selects Piryx.com CEO Tom Serres as a 2009 40 Under 40 Award Winner

June 19, 2009, Austin, TX - The New Leaders Council has recognized Piryx CEO Tom Serres for his hard work in empowering social and political entrepreneurship by selecting him as a 40 Under 40 Award winner.

From NLC’s website:

The 40 Under 40 Awards was created by New Leaders Council (www.newleaderscouncil.org) to help recognize the hard work of a diverse group of young leaders including elected officials, inspiring community organizers, as well as non-profit and policy leaders who exemplify the spirit of progressive political entrepreneurship.

The nominees for the awards are produced by the progressive community. This year, NLC received over 300 nominations. The 40 winners were chosen for displaying extraordinary ability to create progressive change in an innovative and thoughtful manner across a wide variety of sectors as well as their representation of the young progressive network. NLC sought leaders from the labor, women’s rights, renewable energy, education, environmental protection, LGBT, health care, immigration, and working families movements to be honored by the 40 Under 40 Awards.

These awards will serve to credit the distinguished individuals for the exemplary work they do, we all as bridge the national progressive community together by celebrating these leaders with NLC events in five cities across the nation.

Some of the other recipients of the 2009 40 Under 40 Award include Nate Silver, Founder of Fivethirtyeight.com; Jennifer Pozner, Executive Director of Women in Media & News; Clark Lee, Political Director of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party; Paul Rieckhoff, Founder and Executive Director of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Andrae Gonzales, Executive Director of Faith in Action, Edgar Santana, Deputy Executive Director of the New York State Democratic Committee, Mary Rickles, Director of Communications and Media, Netroots Nation and Democracy for America; and Marissa Louie, CEO of AD-Village.com.

For a complete list of 2009 40 Under 40 Award winners, and to learn more about the New Leaders Council, please visit their website.

For more on Piryx in the news, visit http://www.piryx.com/news

Microsoft features Piryx in their Partner Solution MarketPlace

We have been fortunate to work closely with the Microsoft team since the launch of their Bizspark program. Microsoft wrote a Case Study on how Piryx has utilized their services to save money, and be more effective; please read it below:

Piryx

Startup Shaves Two Months, $20,000 Off Development

Posted: 6/11/2009

New company Piryx wanted to change the way political campaigns are managed in the United States—but first it had to change the minds of investors who said Microsoft® software was too expensive for a startup. It did so with the help of Microsoft BizSpark™ technology, which provides access to Microsoft development tools, key parts of the Microsoft application platform, and production use rights to Microsoft servers. Piryx saved two months and U.S.$20,000 on development—“huge for a startup,” according to its CEO.

Business Needs

Among the lessons of the last U.S. presidential campaign was the importance of the Internet to the electoral process. That lesson was nothing new to Tom Serres, CEO of Piryx. His startup company was created precisely to bring technology tools to campaigns at all levels of American politics, tools that formerly would have cost campaigns tens of thousands of dollars or more in consulting fees.

The first tools that Serres and his co-founders envisioned were those for reporting contributions and expenditures, and for fundraising.

“We started with the most difficult things that campaigns struggle with,” says Serres. “Compliance reports are lengthy, painful processes that can take two to three staffers at least a week to prepare—and that’s for smaller campaigns. And the importance of Internet fundraising is now obvious—which makes it crucial for campaigns to make it easy for their supporters to make contributions.”

Piryx began to create demonstration versions of its software using Microsoft® technologies including the Windows Server® operating system and the Microsoft .NET Framework. “We wanted to use the .NET Framework rather than open source alternatives like PHP or Ruby because we think the quality of the development tools available is better.”

Piryx spent about U.S.$8,000 in Windows licenses—a lot of money for a startup having to watch every dollar. “We couldn’t afford as many licenses as we wanted,” acknowledges Serres. “It definitely slowed our development effort.”

And that was of great concern to potential funders. “When we went to potential investors, we got a backlash because they said we were using expensive software, expensive developers,” recalls Serres. “The investors definitely wanted us to shift to open source to bring down the development cost. But moving to open source would have lengthened our time to market. We were getting worried.”

Solution

Then Serres attended a Silicon Valley conference at which Microsoft executives announced a new initiative: Microsoft BizSpark™ technology. The program is designed to give startup companies access to software, support, and a rich, vibrant ecosystem of peers, partners, and support resources around the globe.

We shaved at least two months and $20,000 off of our development time and budget because of… BizSpark. To a startup company trying to get to market before the competition, that’s huge. Tom Serres CEO, Piryx

Instead of the standard licensing rates for Microsoft software, BizSpark provides licenses at no charge—a $100 program fee is assessed after three years—to all Microsoft Visual Studio® Team System 2008 Team Suite development system software, with MSDN® Premium subscription. Startups also receive production use rights to host a “software as a service” solution over the Internet, using many of the latest Microsoft application platform technologies. They even become eligible for offerings such as the Microsoft Azure™ Services Platform, a Microsoft solution for scalable, highly secure cloud computing.

On the support side, BizSpark participants receive the expert information resources that accompany MSDN subscriptions, as well as technical support and customer support assistance. Startups are connected to a global community of network partners who are actively engaged with high-potential, early-stage startups. The program even offers visibility, through Microsoft conferences, MicrosoftStartupZone.com, and other resources, to boost a startup’s profile.

“When I learned about BizSpark, I realized it was exactly the solution we were looking for,” says Serres. “With one move, we would address the development challenges we faced with a limited budget for Windows licenses, we would expand our pool of potential partners and investors, and we would create a close relationship with Microsoft—definitely something that can be invaluable to a startup company like ours.”

Benefits

Piryx was one of the first companies to join BizSpark, and it came to market with its first products five months later. In addition to enabling the company to develop in the Microsoft environment, as Piryx preferred, BizSpark sped time to market and cut development costs, according to Serres.

“We shaved at least two months and $20,000 off of our development time and budget because of the benefits we gained through BizSpark,” he says. “To a startup company trying to get to market before the competition, that’s huge.”

Part of the faster time to market came from being able to upgrade all of its developers to Visual Studio Team System 2008 Team Suite. “Open source tools for C# are okay, but nothing compares to the full Visual Studio environment,” Serres says. “It makes it easier to debug, to do unit testing, to do everything we need to get a quality product out as quickly as possible.”

The licensing support from Microsoft also made it possible for Piryx to run Windows Server 2008 for production deployment of their application and, now, to consider using Microsoft SQL Server® 2008 data management software and the Azure Services Platform. “We’re looking at hosting this solution for our customers. Scalability to support millions of transactions per day is essential,” says Serres. “We’ll get that from SQL Server and Azure. And we’ll get SQL Server and Azure from BizSpark.”

As important as the licensing support, is the relationship that Piryx now has with Microsoft, according to Serres. “One of the great things about working with Microsoft is the support we get from the people at BizSpark,” he says. “We have a close relationship with the BizSpark team. They give us encouragement, feedback, ask how they can help us grow the company. They’ve joined us for meetings with venture capitalists, involved us in Microsoft events, even just taken us out for informal gatherings to discuss our business and how they can help.”

So I watched Actor Jon Voight host the GOP fundraiser and the first thought that came to mind was: Ohh, NOW I get why his daughter, Angelina Jolie, refuse to talk to him – he’s out to lunch!

Of course just because Jon Voight is “out to lunch” doesn’t mean it’s fine for her not to keep in contact with him – but I understand.

You just have to wonder about him and the Republican Party. The GOP has swung so far to the right – so totally and radically far to the right – they’ve blasted out of reality straight into space where they’re just drifting in limbo!

Voight’s calling President Obama a “False Prophet” was simply bizarre. Then to hear his twisted views on how President Bush kept us safe, yet everything Obama has done thus far has turned out disastrous, was outrageous. He continued his rhetoric that Obama is weakening the country and that the Republicans should free the nation from the Obama oppression. Further proof we are not on the same planet.

Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich took to the dais and emphasized how the party should go back to fundamental principals of lower taxes, less government intrusion, and the defense of individualism. Also emphasizing to the group that he, “Is NOT a citizen of the world, “and the idea was, “intellectual nonsense and stunningly dangerous.” There you go, some kind of alien religion talk again.

Republicans call themselves conservatives.  But they seem more like an angry fringe radical group with bibles in hands than a legitimate political party. If you didn’t know it was the GOP they could have passed as members of some kind of underground cult.

The strange thing is, if those same comments were said about former President Bush during his term, Voight, Gingrich and company would have certainly been wire-tapped, jailed, and maybe even waterboarded. How’s that for irony?

Don’t be surprised if people begin to call the Grand Old Party, the Grand Old Propaganda. The party should know by now it’s hard to fool people who live in the real world.

On June 4th, 1989, hundreds of civilians were shot and trampled to death as a result of the Chinese government’s crackdown on the pro-democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China.

In the West, this fact is ubiquitous. Ask most Westerners what they think about when they hear “China” and chances are that they will mention this incident. And we all know that in China the truth of this event has been heavily distorted. This simple fact leads many to believe that the Chinese media is a complete farce, while conversely, the Western media is a beacon of freedom and objectivity. As an American having lived in China for the past seven months and also having personally gone to Tiananmen Square on June 4th, 2009, I can tell you that this is not the case.

Before reading, I would advise you to educate yourself about what happened there on that fateful day and, more importantly, the events leading up to the protests and subsequent attack. The main issue here is that we tend to look at this incident in isolation from a very complex society and history in which it is contained.

June 4th, 2009: After my final English lesson, I scrambled home to get my passport and camera and then headed to the Square. I felt like “something” would happen there and I had to see for myself. As I got on the number 59 bus near my apartment, my thoughts raced and my heart pounded. Will the bus be re-routed from the Square? Should I hide my camera in the secret compartment of my messenger bag, or have it out in the open to not raise suspicion in case I am stopped? As a foreigner, will I be allowed anywhere near the Square? Will I be questioned, searched, detained or worse? Will there be another protest or, God forbid, an assault? Will my life in China be in danger, both figuratively and/or literally? As soon as I arrived, however, I realized how foolish I had been.

At around 9.30pm I got off at the Qianmen stop which is three stops from my apartment. It is as close as you can get to the Square by bus. The street scene seemed normal enough: cars haphazardly parked along near the street, shoppers toting their tote bags, restaurant and store owners closing up shop. What struck me first was that I saw a group of foreigners (in China, of course, we call non-Chinese “foreigners”) walking down the street. One of them was an elderly woman. Going the same direction, my instinct was to follow close behind, as I figured any attackers would hesitate to be violent around an old woman. I am laughing at myself now.

I approached the Square. To my surprise, there were very little soldiers inside. By little, I mean like 20 at most. And it’s a BIG square. Several city blocks. 100 acres. Actually, the biggest public square in the world. I looked around for something more. Tanks? No. But there were a few buses in the center. The actual Square itself was shut down (as it is every night) but the surrounding streets and sidewalks had civilians milling about everywhere. It was a quiet evening with pleasant weather. What better place and time to take a casual walk, so it seemed.



At this point I considered taking out my camera. I got a rush of fear and adrenaline. I looked around for a good place to take a quick snapshot. Then get the hell out of there, I thought. I looked over my shoulder and saw a group of three Chinese civilians. One of them had a rather large and noticeable Canon and was taking photos left and right all fancy-free. I approached them and asked them if it was OK to take pictures. “Sure,” they replied, “it’s always OK to take pictures here.” Suddenly, a gate on the Eastern side of the Square opened and a group of soldiers started marching in our direction. My heart dropped.

I was amazed at what happened next. The man just started photographing the soldiers like he was on safari. I asked him again if it was OK and he looked at me like I was stupid. Obviously it was OK. So I started taking photos of them too. I even had the flash on. They didn’t seem to mind at all. If anything, they straightened up their posture for a better picture!



By the way, you should know something about these Chinese “soldiers”. I would say that 80% of them look younger than 21. Unless they are martial arts experts, they don’t look to be threatening at all. I would equate them to shopping mall security, except that at least these kids are in shape.



Dumbfounded, I walked further down the street. I saw two kids play kungfu fighting. I stopped to take a picture and they both turned and smiled for me. Couples holding hands. Teenagers loitering. And lots and lots of people with cameras.



Why so many cameras? Were they there too, like me, hoping to achieve some kind of amateur journalistic glory? Again, no. They were just participating in a much beloved Asian pastime: taking pictures in front of things.



It was just like any other night. People posing and flashing the “peace” sign (although here the V means “victory”). Just tourists taking pictures.



Periodically, a police van drove by. One drove towards me. Surely I had aroused suspicion with my unusual wandering and frequent photo-taking of the Square and the soldiers around and within. I held my breath as the police van drove past. Right past me. I gazed into the lightly-tinted windows into the back of the van. Bloodied and beaten dissidents? No. No one except the driver and his partner.



The only confrontation with the authorities I had was when I was going through the underpass to get from Tiananmen Square to the front gate of the Forbidden City. The tunnel to get into the Square was blocked by a very unassuming yellow rope. Two young soldiers stood guard. Feeling free by now, I took out my camera and attempted to take a picture. The soldier approached me slowly and said in clear English: “I am on duty; no picture.” OK, no problem.



Another time, I tried to photograph a group of Chinese friends reviewing a picture they had just taken of the Square. This shot would’ve been particularly interesting because a solider was standing right next to them looking at the picture as well! When I took out my camera, the solider simply stepped aside as to not obstruct my shot. Not at all my intention, but it was definitely better than what I feared might be the alternative.



I had seen enough - it was time to go home. Excited, I called my friend Vicky and told her about my experience. It was nothing like I had imagined. I have lived here for seven months and I have never personally seen anything resembling government repression or police brutality. In fact, I have actually seen less of a police presence here than I would see back in the States. Cops don’t carry guns, for example. On a side note, take a walk down the Beijing bar street Sanlitun and you may be shocked by the virtual lack of police, especially if you compare it to the police state* that is 6th Street, Austin, TX on a weekend night. But this day in Beijing was different, right? But more importantly, let me tell you more about my good friend Vicky.

Vicky (her English name) is one of my best and oldest Chinese friends here. She is very westernized. She likes the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Rage Against the Machine. As a matter of fact, we play in a rock band together. She drinks and she smokes. She curses in English more than I do. But, she is also a proud member of the Chinese Communist Party. She loves China. She has tried to justify the Tiananmen crackdown to me once in a conversation. And she was recently interviewed by CNN. Please watch this video. I will wait.



It may not be entirely obvious to you, but as someone who has lived here and knows Vicky I can tell you with confidence that her meaning was completely distorted. I will give you one flat-out lie as an example. CNN’s Emily Chang mentioned that “Many Chinese are afraid to express controversial views. CNN asked dozens of people to speak on camera for this story. Only three said ‘yes.’” Vicky told me that prior to the interview she told CNN that she has plenty of friends that would be willing to participate, but was ignored. Anyways, who are these “people” that CNN asked? Who knows how hard they tried to find people to come forward? If this is not framing then I don’t know what is.

The ironic thing is that nothing that CNN broadcast in the final cut could be seen as any subversive threat to the Chinese government, yet it was presented in a way as if Vicky and the others took a big risk being there.

What did they quote Vicky as saying? “My father said, ‘I don’t want to explain this because you’re too young.’” OK, so they equate talking about Tiananmen to the birds and the bees? Astonishing!

How dare we criticize China’s youth (from an arm’s length) for being apolitical and only concerned about making money! China still has millions who can barely afford to eat. 20 years ago, they had nothing to lose. Now, they have a lot more. Besides, if Obama was not Obama, can anyone honestly say that the vast majority of America’s youth today would be any different than their cynical and uncaring selves like they were during the Bush years? Or even before for that matter? And who cares more about money than Americans? Where else would Chinese learn about the virtues of chasing money? One only has to watch an American television channel for a brief time to understand what is worshipped there.

How dare we expect more from China’s youth? What good have protests, such as the countless ones against the Iraq war, done nowadays? Can we really blame the Chinese?

Are we really to expect that the Chinese government wouldn’t try and control the Square? Are they supposed to just let potential terrorists or demonstrators run rampant? No matter what happened 20 years ago, it is ludicurous to demand that the Chinese government not have any security there. Any government in the world would do the same. Not to prevent a “protest,” but to prevent any number of random dangerous potential things from happening. I mean, really.

What kind of banal questions did Emily Chang ask? “Do you think students these days care about politics? Do they care about freedom?” How is this considered journalism? I don’t know what is more sad, the fact that she asked these questions, or the degree that she felt like she needed to dumb down the interview in order to cater to a jarringly ignorant American audience.

I asked Vicky by email to give me more details about what took place in the interview. By the way, she got to do the interview through her connections at the magazine she works for, The Beijinger. A CNN rep had asked someone at the magazine to look for someone suitable and that person then asked Vicky. So, here are some things that she told me:

On the interview in general

“I knew what the purpose of this interview would be…I’ve heard lots of bad things about CNN, I still wanted to see how bad they could be through my own eyes.”

“I also asked the lady [CNN's Emily Chang] if they would do the cutting [editing] part just for their own good. She told me sincerely, like: ‘we always try to express people’s ideas truthfully.’”

“I felt like it wasn’t about me as an individual, it was about how Western people would perceive Chinese youth. So I was careful about all the questions they asked and tried not be fooled or misled.”

“I felt it wasn’t the right time to defend China or the Chinese government, because the Western media has a lot of misunderstanding about these things…the first thing to should do was to get rid of those misunderstandings, so I decided to just admit our [China's] mistakes and try to explain how it could happen and at the same time to compare us with other governments in order to tell them that there is no big different [sic] between Chinese and other governments.”

“I also told them China needs better PR people.”

On the Tiananmen Incident

“It was a tragedy for sure, people haven’t forgotten about it, neither has the government…I bet the government didn’t know exactly what it should do to handle that problem [the '89 protests]. The government was founded in 1949, at that time they were busy solving problems like social backwardness, poverty and starvation, foreign invasion and, of course, the people’s eager desires to live in communist country (that was the idea at the beginning, anyways).”

“After the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution…increasing pressure from the bad relationships with other countries in the world, who already considered Communism as evil…the government had no experience to deal with the internal contradictions properly. All they had was the old experience from Republic of China governed by Chiang Kai Shek, who did the same things [violent crackdowns] to student protests.”

“Also, the population has always been a big problem…when there are too many people in some places, it will always extend the influence of [controversial] issues. I’ve heard from people who were actually there, that those soldiers were smiling and shaking hands with those students at the beginning of the protest. How old do you think they were? Probably just as the same age as those students, 20 or 21. They are just human beings.”

“Like the Kent State Protest, do you think American soldiers knew how to deal with that? I really doubt it. That was quite the same thing, but just because we have more people here, more people died.”

“It doesn’t matter if it’s Communist or Capitalist, as long as it’s government, it will do things for their own good.” (Vicky said she mentioned this several times during the interview.)

It goes without saying that none of these ideas were expressed in the interview.

And finally:

“At the end of interview, they asked me to repeat my sentence that I had said earlier: ‘I’m a communist, but I still criticize the party. I love my country, but I don’t have to love the government.’ Of course they didn’t show it in the video.” (Italics added.)

At least the Chinese admit to censoring the media. The West so hypocritically proclaims that we have a free and honest press, a stark contrast to the propaganda disseminated by the Chinese. If this is true, how could the New York Times use the word “blanketed” when describing the police presence in the Square on that day? [UPDATE: THE NEW YORK TIMES JUST CHANGED THE HEADLINE OF THIS STORY. IT USED TO BE Police Swarm Tiananmen To Bar Protests," which is a huge exaggeration if not a direct lie.] Why was every related article only about the unknown dead, the cover-up, the lingering anger, the house arrests and the oppression, instead of showing the other side? The side that Vicky tried to express, the side that shows that the Chinese government tried to handle the situation as best as they could? The side that Westerners would never understand, that China, just at the turn of the 20th Century, was still being ripped apart by the Powers and that the inexperienced government was responsible for the stability of an extremely large, sensitive and impoverished country? The side that you would never see unless you could be here? I’m not trying to defend what was indeed a massacre. Think what you will about what happened, but what ever happened to objectivity? Why does the Western media try so hard to portray China as a scary and totalitarian place, possibly a threat, and one that is so “opposite” to us?

• How can we point the finger at China about human rights, when we ignore, justify and censor our own sins concerning torture?
• How can we chastise China for imprisoning “dissidents”, when the PATRIOT Act allows the U.S. government to detain indefintely and without trial just for being labeled a “terrorist”, as well as warrentless searches, and countless other violations or our freedoms? Tom-a-to, tom-ah-to.
• What about the U.S. involvement in the Tlatelolco Massacre of university students in Mexico City, just ten days before the 1968 Summer Olympics, which has been virtually ignored by our media?
• How can we harp on a tragedy that happened 20 years ago in a foreign country, while we are still trying to fix our own deadly gaffe in Iraq?

Speaking of Iraq, Thomas Friedman, a columnist in the New York Times, recently wrote an article about he and President Obama yukking it up telling jokes and then talking seriously about the hornet’s nest that is the Middle East. The majority of the article are direct quotes from the President himself. To sum up, he was talking about Palestine and other Arab states needing to “hold up a mirror” to reflect on their past and current mistakes in foreign policy. But what about America holding up a mirror and looking at herself?

Must I quote Jesus Christ to drive the point home?

“Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brothers eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?” (Jesus in Matthew 7:3, NIV).

*You may think I’m being hyperbolic, but then again you’ve probably never partied in China before.

Some other interesing links:

Ed Morrison, New York Times

Nicholas Kristof, New York Times

China Law Blog post from “Dan”

Video from the Appearance

Piryx Inc. CEO to Appear on FOX and Friends for Rising Star Panel

June 1, 2009, Austin, TX- Piryx Inc. Founder/CEO Tom Serres will appear on FOX News’ morning show, FOX and Friends, on Tuesday, June 2nd, at 8:45am EST as part of a Rising Stars panel discussion. 27-year-old Serres was named last month as a 2009 Rising Star by Campaigns & Elections’ Politics magazine. Several of the honorees, including Serres, will appear on FOX and Friends to discuss their contribution to the political world and debate current events.

One of the most prestigious honors in politics, the Rising Stars award goes to people 35 or under who have made a significant mark in political consulting or advocacy. The magazine chose 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans and seven nonpartisan leaders this year out of a pool of several hundred nominees. The Rising Stars will be honored on June 12 in Washington D.C.

Past Rising Stars include Karen Hughes, George Stephanopoulos, David Axelrod, Paul Begala, Donna Brazile, James Carville, Rahm Emanuel, and Laura Ingraham.

Serres is one of the seven nonpartisan leaders recognized this year. Serres is the entrepreneur behind Piryx, a social commerce platform aimed at empowering the little guys of the political world with online tools. Piryx empowers users with technology to effectuate political and social change.

The Austin-based start-up is currently expanding offices to San Francisco and Dallas and is in the process of rolling out new web applications.

For a complete list of the 2009 Rising Stars, visit http://www.politicsmagazine.com/rising-stars-2009

For more on Piryx in the news, visit http://www.piryx.com/news

Can Elizabeth Edwards ever get a break? As if her problems aren’t enough – now she’s under attack for her book. The woman has terminal cancer, for chrissakes. All she wanted to do was write her story. Instead, the media picked her apart about her husband, John Edwards, and prodded her on the role she played in his misdeeds. Nice going, enquiring minds, give her another reason to throw up!

How unfortunate for a wife of a disgraced politician to be a target of the public’s scrutiny. Just ask Hillary Clinton. During Monicagate, she received her share of wrath from women for staying in the marriage, while Monica Lewinsky became an overnight sensation. The hussy went from being big-haired bimbo, to intriguing ingénue. How did she become the innocent victim?

Now once again, we have nearly the same scenario with Elizabeth and John Edwards, except with a love child in the picture. Plus to complicate matters, Elizabeth has inoperable cancer. Surely she had thoughts of doing a Lorena Bobbitt on her husband, but lucky for him they have young children and time is not on her side.

So Elizabeth Edwards decided to write a positive book on hope and dealing with life’s adversities. She’s smart enough to know that once she passes on, her children will be left with questions. The book would help them understand that life doesn’t always go in a straight line – if they could understand their father’s strengths, as well as his weaknesses, a loving relationship could continue with their father without emotional conflicts. The book was also meant to give hope to others facing adversities in their lives as well.

But the media misunderstood and thought it was a “trashing my husband book.” What should have been a last poignant story from a mother to her children, turned into another nightmare for her. Okay, now we see where Mrs. Edwards was so naïve – she trusted the media to understand a book about hope.

Edwards was slammed for everything from being naïve, to details of her husband’s affair, to why she would even write a book. The grilling may have been good reporting, but was distasteful and unfair. How many healthy individuals can recount accurately, the details of events that happened years ago? Imagine the difficulty for someone on medication with terminal cancer being expected to get every detail correct in an interview. The questions arose about when she knew about her husband’s affair, and if she knew, why she continued to campaign for him. Then she was told that people blamed her for defrauding them by continuing to campaign for her husband. She is guilty by marriage. Surely she saw her husband as somewhat of a Bill Clinton – someone who is good for the country, but not good for himself and those close to him.

Critics wanted to know why only a short mention about her husband’s unnamed mistress was in the book. Then, when Mrs. Edwards recounted what her husband had told her about the encounter with his mistress, critics wanted to know how she could be certain of what was said when she wasn’t there. Now really – who the heck cares? It’s her story and that’s what she knew. The book is about hope and dealing with adversities. If they wanted dirt, why couldn’t they just pick up a National Enquirer?

The real tragedy of all is this: Elizabeth Edwards received nothing but flak from the media, while Riele Hunter, the mistress, will surely be viewed as the glamorous victim. Remember how Monica Lewinsky’s standing was raised to celebrity status after the Clinton affair?

Likewise, Hunter will not be blamed, particularly when she appears with the adorable baby in her arms. Watch for the sympathetic tabloid interview with Baba Wawa or whoever wins the suck up contest for the scoop.

So think about that when you see John Edwards’ mistress hitting the airwaves and magazine covers soon, and then ask yourself, “Why am I so intrigued with the mistress, and so irritated with the wife?”

A week from today I’ll be checking in to the Texas American Legion Boys State program. It will be my third straight year to serve as a senior counselor in what I truly believe is the best leadership program for high school males in America today. It is for that reason that the counselors all give up a week of vacation time to take part and receive no pay for the program.

Comprised of close to 700 boys from around the state that have just finished their junior year of high school, Boys State is a unique week long program in which the boys learn about government, civics, and leadership in a “learn by doing” atmosphere. Since it was created in the 1930s as a counter to the fascist youth camps that were gaining in popularity, Boys State has been an incubator for future leaders that have gone on to success in government, business, and the military. Some examples include Bill Clinton, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee, Tom Brokaw, Michael Jordan, and Neil Armstrong. The program is now hosted every summer in 49 states and thousands of boys attend free of charge thanks to sponsorships from their local American Legion posts.

I was fortunate to be my school’s selection for Boys State in 1993. I was already a political aficionado that enjoyed volunteering on campaigns, reading The Almanac of American Politics for fun, and watching C-SPAN. Still, Boys State taught me more about politics and government in just one week of practical experience than an entire semester of high school government did in my senior year. In a very real sense it helped make me the person I am today.

The boys that come to Texas’ Boys State are leaders in their schools. Each one has been nominated by their teachers and counselors and is ultimately selected by a local Legion post. For many of them it is the first time they’ve been away from home by themselves. They will meet boys from across the entire state that come from all walks of life. By the end of the week however most have formed bonds that will last a lifetime. In some respects it is like boot camp because every boy wears the same Boys State t-shirt and boys from the same school are split up so that there are no preformed groups or alliances.

The program is held every year during the first full week of June on the University of Texas campus in Austin. Large assembly halls and auditoriums are used throughout the sprawling campus for the program. The vast UT intramural fields host the various Boys State sports competitions in the afternoons. The world’s second largest dormitory, the massive Jester Center, is where each boy will share a dorm room with another boy. It’s likely the first roommate he’s ever had. 40 boys will be placed together on a floor in Jester and will be named as a “city.” Amongst the 40 boys half will belong to the Nationalist party and half will belong to the Federalist party. Each party is purely fictitious and it is up to the boys to create their own platforms, chose their own party leaders, nominate their party candidates in primaries, and ultimately square off against the rival party in a general election. With each party having the exact same number of members, getting the cross over votes is key to victory. Boys can run for any office from Governor to justice of the peace and everything in between. Very quickly the boys see how the process works in gathering signatures to be placed on the ballot. They are forced to give speeches in front of hundreds of their peers. They learn how to campaign, how to form coalitions, and if elected they get a taste of how to pass legislation. In fact, the only difference between Boys State and real life in the accelerated one-week process is that there is no money or mudslinger as in real campaigns. Besides that, it’s the real deal. The boys even face run-off elections in the primaries amongst the top two voter getters if no one breaks 50% of the vote. The days at Boys State are necessarily long with everyone getting up at 6am to go to breakfast and with most nights not ending until 11pm or later because of party conventions and speeches. Throughout the entire process everyone seems to have fun. The pound for pound energy at the party rallies and assemblies at Boys State passes anything you will ever see at a real political convention.

One of the highlights during the week is the vast number of dignitaries that come to speak to the boys. For most of the boys it’s the first time they’ve ever been to Austin and it’s a thrill when many of the statewide elected officials not only speak to them, but also answer their questions and sometimes even eat dinner with them in the cafeteria. Boys State also routinely has speakers that have been P.O.W.s, business leaders, and even one that served as the CIA station chief in Moscow. His talk is always one of the favorites.

On the last day of the program the boys conduct a parade from the UT campus to the Texas Capitol. The Austin police block off N. Congress Ave. and the Boys State color guard and band (the band is made up of Boys Staters and is routinely one of the best I’ve ever heard) lead the way. Once at the capitol the boys are able to visit the offices of their state reps and senators and tour the building. Those that have been elected to the Boys State House and Senate sit on the floor of the Texas House and Senate in the same chairs and desks used by the members of the Texas Legislature. They will debate mock legislation and cast votes.

Politicians, like Whitney Houston, are forever lamely saying that the children are our future. Well, at Boys State you get to see some of our future leaders as young men and if you spend some time around them you will feel better about our nation’s future. If only we had more programs like Boys State I think we’d have less to worry about.

Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, has announced her candidacy for California governor next year. That state is a wreck and has been made worse by Gov. Schwarzenegger’s inability or refusal to take on the powerful organizations that have driven the state deeply into the red. Last week voters in California overwhelmingly defeated five propositions that would have raised taxes and fees. Their message was clear to the politicians in Sacramento that they’ve taken enough of their money and need to live within their means.

Last week The Weekly Standard ran a good cover story on Meg Whitman. If you don’t know her its pretty likely you’ve heard of her company, eBay. “When she arrived in 1998, eBay had 30 employees, $4 million in revenues, and 300,000 registered users. When she left in 2008, it had 15,000 employees, $7.7 billion in revenues, and nearly 300 million registered users worldwide, more than 12 million of them in California.”

Whitman gets it when it comes to capitalism and the role of government. “I was president and CEO of eBay for 10 years,” she said. “And eBay reinforced two important Republican concepts with which I had been raised.”

The first: Americans are “motivated by economic opportunity to achieve great things.” By creating e-commerce, eBay “became the home of so many inspired individuals, Americans with the courage and passion to create businesses and jobs. I ran eBay with those folks in mind. We purposely kept regulation on eBay to a minimum so that small business could innovate.”

The second: “Less government is simply better.” Her career before eBay “had not involved me too closely with taxation, government bureaucracy, or regulation,” she said. “But after years of watching government try to tax and regulate the success of eBay sellers, I left eBay with a strong belief that government’s role in our lives should be limited.  .  .  .  Government can only help create the conditions for prosperity. Prosperity itself is up to each of us.”

Finally, she seems to understand better than most politicians how technology can improve lives. Here’s her example of how dated California’s government has become.

Sacramento, the state capital, “is the most inward looking place I’ve ever seen,” Whitman says. Information technology, constantly updated, runs eBay. “But the information infrastructure that runs the state of California is stuck in 1982.  .  .  .  We run 17 financial systems at the state on 1982 Oracle financials. We don’t actually know what the high school graduation rate is because we don’t have the IT infrastructure that tracks the kids.”

This should be a fun race to watch in 2010.