At the The China Vortex, Paul Denlinger discusses how there is no unified “China market”, no monolithic, simplistic, single-minded Goliath that the rest of the world is trying to deal with. While I do not have the depth of on the ground experience that Mr. Denlinger has (I have not yet been blessed with the opportunity to visit or do business in China), I can see the truth he brings to the discussion.

One of the great pits that Western culture falls into when dealing with the China problem is just that: It is seen as a problem, not an opportunity to expand and learn from a culture that deals with life, philosophy, and business in a very different manner.

This should come as no surprise to any astute student of History, or even modern geopolitics, as the way that nations deal with perceived threats or challenges is to create a national culture of The Other, the us-v-them foreign policy.

When Japan was the country du jour in the 1980s, the Western World respected it, in a very shallow way, as a fellow industrial nation with a strong warrior culture. However, it was treated in a simple way, with Western media portrayals that strengthened perceived stereotypes, and plastered over the profound differences that exist within Japan, and within the Japanese people.

China is even more of a victim of this Politics of the Other, having spent more than 50 years as one of the adversaries in the Cold War, being vilified and portrayed in the least flattering light possible. Even without the base Human interpretation of simplistic interpretations of the Other, the West is crippled from the start in its attempts to understand a nation as large, diverse, and fractured as China.

China is far more than Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong and small cadre of smaller, but no less important industrial / post-industrial metropolitan areas.

Drawing on my experience in trying to interpret Internet performance data from within this nation, it is clear to even the casual observer that the Chinese Internet does not simply exist in the major cities. It extends into the far reaches of the country, fractured by the internal conflicts of the connectivity providers, government officials at a many levels, and the unstoppable drive and creativity of the people who see the Internet as an opportunity to make their way in their world.

Cultural and national stereotypes are the way that humans ineffectively deal with the differences that exist. But just as the terms “All Brits..”, “All the French..”, “All Germans…”, “All Argentinians..”, et al. should be treated with disdain and seen as a sign of ignorance, using the words “All Chinese…” or “All of China…” should be quickly quashed and carted off to the dustbin of simplistic paranoia and xenophobia.

There is no such thing as a threat. As it is often stated in other contexts, a threat is simply an opportunity that is hidden by your own prejudices.

Scoble posts Ballmer’s memo.

That Microsoft has a legislative agenda scares me. That this bill wasn’t on it, and, as such, was then disowned by the company makes the scenario worse.

Steve Ballmer: You control the world’s wealthiest corporation. You say you are hardcore for diversity. Then you say:

It’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on issues of public policy that directly affect our business and our shareholders, but it’s much less clear when it’s appropriate to invoke the company’s name on broader issues that go far beyond the software industry — and on which our employees and shareholders hold widely divergent opinions. We are a public corporation with a duty first and foremost to a broad group of shareholders. On some issues, it is more appropriate for employees or shareholders to get involved as individual citizens. As CEO, I feel a real sense of responsibility around this question, and I believe there are important distinctions between my personal views on policy issues and when it’s appropriate to involve the company.

You know how many of your most talented current, former and possibly future employees will see this situation. It is a black eye for Microsoft. It shows all of us, those of us who live in the US but are not citizens, as well as the 48% of the population who do not agree with the current leadership, that your compant lacks the moral fiber to take a stand.

I am ashamed to use Microsoft products, because now they aren’t about the people who use them; they are about the company’s shareholders.

Microsoft: Your money. Our profits. Our shareholder’s dividends.

I really try to stay away from political issues, as I am considered an enemy alien living in the US at the will of the DHS.

But if ANYTHING stated in this article is even remotely true, Microsoft has shown that it is morally bankrupt.

I would love to hear some comments from Scoble, Mini-Microsoft, Charlie Kindel, or Dare Obasanjo.

If this is a true reflection of Microsoft’s approach to openess and acceptance, I take back any positive things I said yesterday.

I want this to not be true. Please tell me this is not true.

Scoble says he is definitely not going to be happy if this is true.

Mini-Microsoft agrees with Scoble and me. This in and of itself is worthy of a comment: that the three of us agree on anything means that a plague of locusts is likely to descend on my garden.

Although I want to hear what BGates and SBallmer have to say on this.

The Head Lemur has an excellent rant on his favourite Rubbermaid Laundry Basket, and the state of the company itself (Laundry Baskets).

I agree with his design changes, and I also wholeheartedly agree with his rants on the state of the Rubbermaid site. I used to be a Rubbermaid evangalist myself. When I was a grad student in the early 1990s, I stored the contents of my nomadic life in RoughNeck containers, which doubled as firniture. However, since then, the quality and diversity of their product line has sunk and they have been marginalized.

After watching the Frontline on Is Wal-Mart Good for America, I blame Wal-Mart and poor management for the slide of one of my favourite brands. Wal-Mart squeezed an American plastics company right to the edge, exposing magaement issues, and forcing them into a merger with Newell.

So, although I like the design that the Head Lemur has suggested, it is unlikely that a company which was once so creative and cutting edge will even care that someone has a cool idea to improve one of their products.

I hope I am proven wrong as well.