Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Re: Obama Picks Biden
The following is a response to my post: Obama Picks Biden. Following that will be my counterresponse.
===Response===
First of all, I want to congradulate Biden for his vp nomination. I personally thought that Hillary Clinton could of brought the same message that Biden brought and more. She could of united the Democratic party and could of carried 18 million votes compared to Biden's 5,000. That's my opinion though. Biden is a good man and I respect him.
I want to mention this constant lie that McCain is like Bush. This is my message to Obama and others who think the same. Bush is not running this year, GET OVER IT! On the environment, U.S. diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, McCain has strikingly different views from Bush. And although he shares the president's goals in Iraq, he was always an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.
Speaking of Iraq, the only reason why the White House now supports a withdrawel plan is because McCain's plan has worked. Obama wanted to pull out troops in a time that many though that Americans were losing the war in Iraq. We are now winning, and the Iraqis are beginning to stabilize the region by themselves, so Obama's plan works well now. The problem is that Obama wanted to pull out during a time that Iraq was in complete chaos. McCain was the first and one of the only men in the senate to push for the idea of the surge, and it now shows that he was right.
Back to the differences between McCain and Bush. McCain advocates the end to the detention of foreign terrorists in Cuba. Bush on the other hand thinks they should remain open. Unlike Bush, McCain is against any forced interrogation methods, such as Water-boarding. A week after the storm, McCain blasted Bush administration for the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
There are other differences between McCain and Bush, but I think the most important difference is that Bush is clearly incompetent and McCain, though not perfect has shown clear competence. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House.
Secondly, Joe Biden is a good friend of John McCain. Biden said in many debates that Obama lacked experience. This could hurt the Obama campaign dramatically. He also said HIMSELF that he would be honored to campaign with or against McCain.
Although Biden has good foreign policy experience, he is the vp, not the president. I want a commander in chief, not someone who needs a mentor. Barack Obama is the president and he is going to have to make decisions on his own. He can't ask Biden for advise on every issue.
I will talk more about this topic, but I have to go to work right now.
===My Response===
You are correct that McCain differs from George Bush on diplomacy. Meaning he is even more of a neocon. Bush (or someone in his administration) has finally realized that diplomacy with hostile nations is the only way to solve problems, whereas McCain has repeated the "we deal with hostile nations with bombs not words" rhetoric.
You are also correct that the surge has worked and that McCain was correct about it. You do not remember the point I have made countless times before-that it is not the surge that determines one's judgement, it is the initial decision on the war. Obama stands alone in opposing the war from the beginning. Joe Biden himself has never come out and criticized the president for misleading the country into war, he has done what McCain has done and simply criticized its execution. This war could quite well produce a democratic paradise in Iraq. The country has forgotten that Bush did not take us into war to build a democracy. He took us into war to find weapons of mass destruction that he knew were not there. The tactics of the surge are up to the generals. Having knowledge of military strategy is far from a requirement to be president. I would much rather have someone who listens to advisors and can make a reasoned decision. The decision to go to war in the first place was the one that rested with the president. And Obama was right about that most important decision.
You must realize that calling McCain a Bush clone does not mean every single decision he will make will be the same. It is a way of pointing out McCain's vocal support for many of Bush's policies and his silence in opposing others. Biden today mentioned privatized social security. If you go to McCain's website, you will find that his health care plan is more of Bush's "more options" plan and none of the Democrats' socialized medicine. You will find that McCain wants to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision by appointing conservative judges. You will find that McCain does not support embryonic stem cell research to quickly find new cures for diseases. You will find a tax plan that gives more breaks to the wealthy than to the poor. I will not debate the merits of these positions here but I would like to point out that they look a lot like Bush's policies. On issues such as corruption, the environment, and the general competence of a McCain administration, he is much better than Bush and is as much of a change as Obama is. But those issues are less important than the economy, healthcare, and Iraq in the eyes of the voters. I agree, calling McCain a Bush clone does not do him justice. You could not have said that about the John McCain of 2000 or 2004. But his positions have moved more in line with Bush recently and I am really dismayed that such a great public servant has become the man he is today. McCain=Bush is not completely true. But it's a useful summary of many of his positions and it's good politics. It's better than much of the trash coming from the right.
Biden's past comments will do nothing to hurt Obama. In 1980, George H. W. Bush called Ronald Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics" before he joined him as his vice president. It didn't hurt Reagan at all. Even though his plan of lowering taxes and increasing spending was total bullshit and eventually led to a HUGE deficit (not nearly Bush-sized), the voters didn't care about Bush 41's comments.
You need to remember that Hillary Clinton comes with a lot of people who hate her simply because she is Hillary Clinton. She comes with a lot more haters than new Obama voters. And she comes with a Bill Clinton who cannot be controlled by Obama. Although she is a great leader, it would not be politically feasible for Obama to pick her as VP. Besides, do you really think Clinton would tolerate being VP? She has much more clout in the Senate where she will most likely rise to leadership after the campaign. You will not catch a Clinton playing second fiddle to anyone.
I challenge you to show me an occasion where Obama has showed ignorance on foreign policy issues. Show me where he has erred (excluding the surge, I already addressed that) and showed that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You don't need to have served for a huge amount of time to know what's going on in the world. That's why the president has such a huge bureaucracy to aid him and give him information. I would much rather have a smart person who has smarter advisors as president. You don't have to know everything. John McCain knows absolutely nothing about the economy and has admitted it many times. Do you hold that against him? Henry Kissinger did pretty much all of Nixon's foreign policy. Does that detract from Nixon's accomplishments (visit to China, end of Vietnam)? You get the same result.
You will have to do better than say "Obama doesn't have experience" to convince me that his views are wrong. If people don't agree with his views, they won't care how much experience McCain has. Bush has one of the most experienced administrations in history. And you know how that turned out. People don't buy the experience argument as much as they used to.
===Response===
First of all, I want to congradulate Biden for his vp nomination. I personally thought that Hillary Clinton could of brought the same message that Biden brought and more. She could of united the Democratic party and could of carried 18 million votes compared to Biden's 5,000. That's my opinion though. Biden is a good man and I respect him.
I want to mention this constant lie that McCain is like Bush. This is my message to Obama and others who think the same. Bush is not running this year, GET OVER IT! On the environment, U.S. diplomacy and nuclear proliferation, McCain has strikingly different views from Bush. And although he shares the president's goals in Iraq, he was always an outspoken critic of the way the war was managed.
Speaking of Iraq, the only reason why the White House now supports a withdrawel plan is because McCain's plan has worked. Obama wanted to pull out troops in a time that many though that Americans were losing the war in Iraq. We are now winning, and the Iraqis are beginning to stabilize the region by themselves, so Obama's plan works well now. The problem is that Obama wanted to pull out during a time that Iraq was in complete chaos. McCain was the first and one of the only men in the senate to push for the idea of the surge, and it now shows that he was right.
Back to the differences between McCain and Bush. McCain advocates the end to the detention of foreign terrorists in Cuba. Bush on the other hand thinks they should remain open. Unlike Bush, McCain is against any forced interrogation methods, such as Water-boarding. A week after the storm, McCain blasted Bush administration for the failed response to Hurricane Katrina.
There are other differences between McCain and Bush, but I think the most important difference is that Bush is clearly incompetent and McCain, though not perfect has shown clear competence. McCain would bring a different style, background and world view to the White House.
Secondly, Joe Biden is a good friend of John McCain. Biden said in many debates that Obama lacked experience. This could hurt the Obama campaign dramatically. He also said HIMSELF that he would be honored to campaign with or against McCain.
Although Biden has good foreign policy experience, he is the vp, not the president. I want a commander in chief, not someone who needs a mentor. Barack Obama is the president and he is going to have to make decisions on his own. He can't ask Biden for advise on every issue.
I will talk more about this topic, but I have to go to work right now.
===My Response===
You are correct that McCain differs from George Bush on diplomacy. Meaning he is even more of a neocon. Bush (or someone in his administration) has finally realized that diplomacy with hostile nations is the only way to solve problems, whereas McCain has repeated the "we deal with hostile nations with bombs not words" rhetoric.
You are also correct that the surge has worked and that McCain was correct about it. You do not remember the point I have made countless times before-that it is not the surge that determines one's judgement, it is the initial decision on the war. Obama stands alone in opposing the war from the beginning. Joe Biden himself has never come out and criticized the president for misleading the country into war, he has done what McCain has done and simply criticized its execution. This war could quite well produce a democratic paradise in Iraq. The country has forgotten that Bush did not take us into war to build a democracy. He took us into war to find weapons of mass destruction that he knew were not there. The tactics of the surge are up to the generals. Having knowledge of military strategy is far from a requirement to be president. I would much rather have someone who listens to advisors and can make a reasoned decision. The decision to go to war in the first place was the one that rested with the president. And Obama was right about that most important decision.
You must realize that calling McCain a Bush clone does not mean every single decision he will make will be the same. It is a way of pointing out McCain's vocal support for many of Bush's policies and his silence in opposing others. Biden today mentioned privatized social security. If you go to McCain's website, you will find that his health care plan is more of Bush's "more options" plan and none of the Democrats' socialized medicine. You will find that McCain wants to reverse the Roe v. Wade decision by appointing conservative judges. You will find that McCain does not support embryonic stem cell research to quickly find new cures for diseases. You will find a tax plan that gives more breaks to the wealthy than to the poor. I will not debate the merits of these positions here but I would like to point out that they look a lot like Bush's policies. On issues such as corruption, the environment, and the general competence of a McCain administration, he is much better than Bush and is as much of a change as Obama is. But those issues are less important than the economy, healthcare, and Iraq in the eyes of the voters. I agree, calling McCain a Bush clone does not do him justice. You could not have said that about the John McCain of 2000 or 2004. But his positions have moved more in line with Bush recently and I am really dismayed that such a great public servant has become the man he is today. McCain=Bush is not completely true. But it's a useful summary of many of his positions and it's good politics. It's better than much of the trash coming from the right.
Biden's past comments will do nothing to hurt Obama. In 1980, George H. W. Bush called Ronald Reagan's economic plan "voodoo economics" before he joined him as his vice president. It didn't hurt Reagan at all. Even though his plan of lowering taxes and increasing spending was total bullshit and eventually led to a HUGE deficit (not nearly Bush-sized), the voters didn't care about Bush 41's comments.
You need to remember that Hillary Clinton comes with a lot of people who hate her simply because she is Hillary Clinton. She comes with a lot more haters than new Obama voters. And she comes with a Bill Clinton who cannot be controlled by Obama. Although she is a great leader, it would not be politically feasible for Obama to pick her as VP. Besides, do you really think Clinton would tolerate being VP? She has much more clout in the Senate where she will most likely rise to leadership after the campaign. You will not catch a Clinton playing second fiddle to anyone.
I challenge you to show me an occasion where Obama has showed ignorance on foreign policy issues. Show me where he has erred (excluding the surge, I already addressed that) and showed that he doesn't know what he's talking about. You don't need to have served for a huge amount of time to know what's going on in the world. That's why the president has such a huge bureaucracy to aid him and give him information. I would much rather have a smart person who has smarter advisors as president. You don't have to know everything. John McCain knows absolutely nothing about the economy and has admitted it many times. Do you hold that against him? Henry Kissinger did pretty much all of Nixon's foreign policy. Does that detract from Nixon's accomplishments (visit to China, end of Vietnam)? You get the same result.
You will have to do better than say "Obama doesn't have experience" to convince me that his views are wrong. If people don't agree with his views, they won't care how much experience McCain has. Bush has one of the most experienced administrations in history. And you know how that turned out. People don't buy the experience argument as much as they used to.
Obama Picks Biden
Unfortunately the Obama text message was sent at 3:23 AM so I wasn't able to report on this immediately.
Out of the names that were floating around, Biden was the one person who could turn around the slump that Obama's been having recently. Last week he dropped below McCain in the RealClearPolitics electoral vote count. McCain's lies and whines have been working.
Obama needs someone to strike back, and Biden has certainly shown a willingness to attack when he needs to. He might screw up once in a while but that's better than not saying anything at all.
McCain will also no longer be able to use his greatest weapon-his foreign policy "credentials". Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he supported the Iraq War. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but it is Obama's plan for withdrawal that has been vaguely endorsed by American generals and Iraqi politicians. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he does not realize that "surrender" is not an option in Iraq because we are not fighting a group that it is possible to surrender to. It's not quite that bad yet, but we're getting to the point that we can say McCain's sentences are composed of a noun, a verb, and "I was a prisoner of war". Not to say that McCain cheated at Saddleback (I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt), but what does being a prisoner of war have to do with that? War heroes can't cheat? What ever happened to Duke Cunningham? Or that guy Benedict Arnold? Of course I'm not comparing McCain to either of those people, but he can't keep using the prisoner of war card like it's a get out of jail free card. I see him using that tactic far more than Obama has pulled his race card.
I just hope that the Obama-Biden joint appearance today will be the start of a new campaign phase, where the Democrats actually get their act together and go attack the other candidate. And we can attack McCain with truth, instead of the lies he's using. You can't pull the prisoner of war card on the truth.
Out of the names that were floating around, Biden was the one person who could turn around the slump that Obama's been having recently. Last week he dropped below McCain in the RealClearPolitics electoral vote count. McCain's lies and whines have been working.
Obama needs someone to strike back, and Biden has certainly shown a willingness to attack when he needs to. He might screw up once in a while but that's better than not saying anything at all.
McCain will also no longer be able to use his greatest weapon-his foreign policy "credentials". Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he supported the Iraq War. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but it is Obama's plan for withdrawal that has been vaguely endorsed by American generals and Iraqi politicians. Yes, he was a prisoner of war, but he does not realize that "surrender" is not an option in Iraq because we are not fighting a group that it is possible to surrender to. It's not quite that bad yet, but we're getting to the point that we can say McCain's sentences are composed of a noun, a verb, and "I was a prisoner of war". Not to say that McCain cheated at Saddleback (I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt), but what does being a prisoner of war have to do with that? War heroes can't cheat? What ever happened to Duke Cunningham? Or that guy Benedict Arnold? Of course I'm not comparing McCain to either of those people, but he can't keep using the prisoner of war card like it's a get out of jail free card. I see him using that tactic far more than Obama has pulled his race card.
I just hope that the Obama-Biden joint appearance today will be the start of a new campaign phase, where the Democrats actually get their act together and go attack the other candidate. And we can attack McCain with truth, instead of the lies he's using. You can't pull the prisoner of war card on the truth.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Chinese Olympic Gymnastics Hate Groups
Let me preface all of this by saying that I don't believe that the some of the women on the Chinese Olympics Gymnastics team are over 16. Obviously the government changed their passports. It does violate the rules but it's for the IOC and the IGF to decide what should happen.
But let me make this point: do the Chinese women deserve to be stripped of their medals because they are underage? Did they not show that they are the best gymnastics team in the world? Barring some scoring controversies, they showed that they deserve to be called the best gymnasts in the world. And the scoring controversies have nothing to do with a home advantage or bias, as the judging panel is not allowed to have members from the teams they are judging. If anything, scoring errors are what caused the American gymnasts to lose out on some medals that they deserved.
===
Here is but one of the many hate groups you will find on Facebook.
"I Hope When the Chinese Olympic Gymnasts Get Their Periods, It Kills Them"
No explanation needed. I invite everyone to report the group.
===
Some samples from other groups:
"Maybe that's true Silas. Yes we might be whiney. But we are venting about the injustice that is going on in what is suppose to be a fair world competition. It might not change, that's true. But at least we have a place where we can talk out all the cheating that's going on in these events.
The fact that Nastia tied with that Chinese girl and got second is sickening. I'm not sure how that is possible. And Devon is right. We should have known going in there that the world basically hates Americans. Especially the Chinese. Geez we have more freedom then they do, and they are working in in Sweatshops for like 5 cents an hour making products that go to America. and they probably don't see any of the profit. So the Least they could do is cheat and give their country the gold medal(s). That's probably the only gold or profit these girls will see in their lifetime. It's just disheartening."
Apparently this person thinks he can sympathize with the working conditions in China (which he misstates) and sympathize with the gymnasts and trash everything else about China. Not to mention his ignorance of the tiebreaking procedure. Once again, note the victim attitude of "everyone hates America, including China". Looking at the rapid rate at which China is consuming American cultural exports, I'd like to know where he gets this impression.
===
"FUCK THESE OLYMPICS AND LET ALL THE JUDGES ROT IN HELL"
This guy really knows what he's talking about. China has definitely been suppressing the rights of Taiwanese who they don't even have control over. China doesn't deserve to have control over Tibet (a historical part of many Chinese empires) because...well...we said so? The author surely knows how to judge a gymnastics routine better than professional judges. And when American athletes get points off because they fall and make mistakes? That's called getting "fucked over".
===
The rest of the groups are filled with the same kind of hate, which spreads to misinformed rants about other issues. No one seems to remember that the tiebreaking procedure that gave the gold to He Kexin over Nastia Liukin was put in place before the competition and has been released to the public. No one seems to remember the judging scandals that took place at the 2004 Olympics No one seems to remember that the point of the Olympics is to find the best athletes. If the best athletes are underage, then they deserve to win, even if they can't compete.
Nastia Liukin herself said it best. "(He) is an excellent athlete, no matter how old she is. She's done her hard work and her preparation, and she deserved that gold medal tonight."
America seems to have forgotten that it doesn't own the world. If something goes against us, we whine and scream and throw a tantrum until the rest of the world is either scared into changing things or just sick of our behavior. So the Chinese overstated their age. Big deal. Yes it's against the rules but does it help their performance? I'd say it gives them a disadvantage to have a younger team with less experience. America has no room to talk when our athletes regularly take performance enhancing drugs and don't get punished. Our athletes are all about the money and the fame that they get from success. Not to say that some don't deserve it, there are many professional athletes who are great people as well. But we have plenty who get arrested from everything from murder to dog fighting. The Chinese gymnasts are hardworking girls who came from poor families. They gave it their all to have a shot at becoming Olympic champions. They compete for their country. You may fault the government for cheating, but surely you can't fault the athletes themselves?
Once again, I repeat my belief that the Chinese gymnasts are not all of competition age and that under IGF rules, it is not allowed. The final resolution of the situation is not for anyone else to decide. But let me caution anyone who shares the views of the people posting in the various hate groups. It does not help your case when all you can do is whine and complain about technicalities. A true Olympic champion does not whine. It does not help you win a gold medal if you make personal attacks against the opponent. Just ask Frenchman Alain Bernard, whose "We'll smash the Americans" comment was just your normal pre-competition tough talk. It does not help your case when you are a country with as little international credibility as the United States. When you have many athletes back home who juice and do drugs and get arrested for violence. Yes, cheating is wrong. Yes, there were judging errors. But humans are not perfect. There is always controversy at the Olympics. This time is no different. Just because for once, the United States is losing out doesn't mean it's any more important or any worse a violation than before.
But let me make this point: do the Chinese women deserve to be stripped of their medals because they are underage? Did they not show that they are the best gymnastics team in the world? Barring some scoring controversies, they showed that they deserve to be called the best gymnasts in the world. And the scoring controversies have nothing to do with a home advantage or bias, as the judging panel is not allowed to have members from the teams they are judging. If anything, scoring errors are what caused the American gymnasts to lose out on some medals that they deserved.
===
Here is but one of the many hate groups you will find on Facebook.
"I Hope When the Chinese Olympic Gymnasts Get Their Periods, It Kills Them"
No explanation needed. I invite everyone to report the group.
===
Some samples from other groups:
"Maybe that's true Silas. Yes we might be whiney. But we are venting about the injustice that is going on in what is suppose to be a fair world competition. It might not change, that's true. But at least we have a place where we can talk out all the cheating that's going on in these events.
The fact that Nastia tied with that Chinese girl and got second is sickening. I'm not sure how that is possible. And Devon is right. We should have known going in there that the world basically hates Americans. Especially the Chinese. Geez we have more freedom then they do, and they are working in in Sweatshops for like 5 cents an hour making products that go to America. and they probably don't see any of the profit. So the Least they could do is cheat and give their country the gold medal(s). That's probably the only gold or profit these girls will see in their lifetime. It's just disheartening."
Apparently this person thinks he can sympathize with the working conditions in China (which he misstates) and sympathize with the gymnasts and trash everything else about China. Not to mention his ignorance of the tiebreaking procedure. Once again, note the victim attitude of "everyone hates America, including China". Looking at the rapid rate at which China is consuming American cultural exports, I'd like to know where he gets this impression.
===
"FUCK THESE OLYMPICS AND LET ALL THE JUDGES ROT IN HELL"
This guy really knows what he's talking about. China has definitely been suppressing the rights of Taiwanese who they don't even have control over. China doesn't deserve to have control over Tibet (a historical part of many Chinese empires) because...well...we said so? The author surely knows how to judge a gymnastics routine better than professional judges. And when American athletes get points off because they fall and make mistakes? That's called getting "fucked over".
===
The rest of the groups are filled with the same kind of hate, which spreads to misinformed rants about other issues. No one seems to remember that the tiebreaking procedure that gave the gold to He Kexin over Nastia Liukin was put in place before the competition and has been released to the public. No one seems to remember the judging scandals that took place at the 2004 Olympics No one seems to remember that the point of the Olympics is to find the best athletes. If the best athletes are underage, then they deserve to win, even if they can't compete.
Nastia Liukin herself said it best. "(He) is an excellent athlete, no matter how old she is. She's done her hard work and her preparation, and she deserved that gold medal tonight."
America seems to have forgotten that it doesn't own the world. If something goes against us, we whine and scream and throw a tantrum until the rest of the world is either scared into changing things or just sick of our behavior. So the Chinese overstated their age. Big deal. Yes it's against the rules but does it help their performance? I'd say it gives them a disadvantage to have a younger team with less experience. America has no room to talk when our athletes regularly take performance enhancing drugs and don't get punished. Our athletes are all about the money and the fame that they get from success. Not to say that some don't deserve it, there are many professional athletes who are great people as well. But we have plenty who get arrested from everything from murder to dog fighting. The Chinese gymnasts are hardworking girls who came from poor families. They gave it their all to have a shot at becoming Olympic champions. They compete for their country. You may fault the government for cheating, but surely you can't fault the athletes themselves?
Once again, I repeat my belief that the Chinese gymnasts are not all of competition age and that under IGF rules, it is not allowed. The final resolution of the situation is not for anyone else to decide. But let me caution anyone who shares the views of the people posting in the various hate groups. It does not help your case when all you can do is whine and complain about technicalities. A true Olympic champion does not whine. It does not help you win a gold medal if you make personal attacks against the opponent. Just ask Frenchman Alain Bernard, whose "We'll smash the Americans" comment was just your normal pre-competition tough talk. It does not help your case when you are a country with as little international credibility as the United States. When you have many athletes back home who juice and do drugs and get arrested for violence. Yes, cheating is wrong. Yes, there were judging errors. But humans are not perfect. There is always controversy at the Olympics. This time is no different. Just because for once, the United States is losing out doesn't mean it's any more important or any worse a violation than before.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
On Jerome Corsi
Here's an idea. Why doesn't Barack Obama sue Jerome Corsi for his book The Obama Nation? The book is clearly libelous and littered with flat-out lies. Why doesn't John Kerry do the same; Corsi was the coauthor of Unfit for Command which was part of that slander campaign known as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. How is it that freedom of speech protects those who spread vicious lies with the full knowledge that they are untrue and will cause damage to people's reputations? Isn't that the very definition of libel and slander? Last time I checked, those were illegal.
This article from Tim Rutten of the LA Times delves deep into Corsi's background. A surprising player in this whole affair is Mary Matalin, a Republican strategist who just happens to be married to Democratic strategist James "It's the Economy, Stupid" Carville. The fact that a respected person like Matalin would associate herself with a book by someone who believes George W. Bush wants to merge the United States and Mexico, someone who refers to Muslims as "ragheads" and the pope as "senile", someone who has appeared on The Political Cesspool...
This article from Tim Rutten of the LA Times delves deep into Corsi's background. A surprising player in this whole affair is Mary Matalin, a Republican strategist who just happens to be married to Democratic strategist James "It's the Economy, Stupid" Carville. The fact that a respected person like Matalin would associate herself with a book by someone who believes George W. Bush wants to merge the United States and Mexico, someone who refers to Muslims as "ragheads" and the pope as "senile", someone who has appeared on The Political Cesspool...
Sunday, August 10, 2008
NBC interviews George Bush @ Olympics
George Bush was just interviewed by Bob Costas during his visit at the Beijing Olympics. Right behind him was...the giant portrait of Mao in Tiananmen Square.Of course they mentioned human rights, Darfur, Iran, and all those issues. I must say Bush was extremely gracious in his remarks and repeated his policy of engaging China on friendly and respectful terms. He might have been a failed president but he can still handle himself with poise.
That being said, I had to object to his comments regarding Darfur. He called China a nation that welcomed Omar al-Bashir with open arms, which is true. But what he didn't mention was our own welcoming of Sudanese intelligence chief Salah Gosh into the United States in order to get "information" on Osama bin-Laden, who could not have been hurt by any Sudanese intelligence. We can't possibly to expect other nations to comply with our wishes when we ourselves set such a poor example.
Bush also said that he talked to Vladimir Putin regarding the South Ossetia conflict, saying the violence was unacceptable. Noble words, but Bush should know by now that the man whose soul he looked into cares little about world opinion. The announced ceasefire will be dictated completely on Russian terms. Georgia can expect little assistance from the West.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Invasion of Georgia
Go Georgia, show those Russians what you're made of!
Russia (as well as other thorns in the side of the West) has know for a long time that it can walk right over the wishes of the West. Especially post-Iraq, no Western nation has the guts to back their words with any action at all. It's all up to Russia to determine how far this conflict goes. Hopefully Georgia will shoot down a few more jets and destroy a few more tanks before this ends.
Russia (as well as other thorns in the side of the West) has know for a long time that it can walk right over the wishes of the West. Especially post-Iraq, no Western nation has the guts to back their words with any action at all. It's all up to Russia to determine how far this conflict goes. Hopefully Georgia will shoot down a few more jets and destroy a few more tanks before this ends.
John McCain attack ad during Olympics
The title says it all. In my area, John McCain aired an attack ad during the Olympics. So much for not politicizing the Olympics. I find it appalling that anyone would even consider airing political ads during the Olympics.
---Edit---
I just saw an Obama ad too, didn't see what the content was though. I still don't approve of political ads during the Olympics.
---Edit---
I just saw an Obama ad too, didn't see what the content was though. I still don't approve of political ads during the Olympics.
Chinese politics commentary
Yesterday's opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics will be the show to end all Olympics opening ceremonies. I pity the poor person in charge of designing the 2010 Vancouver show. Only in China could a show of such magnitude occur. The ceremony was certainly a spectacle that demonstrated to the world the enormity of Chinese history and culture.
And yet Westerners still compare the massive hordes of performers to the massive hordes of young Nazi soldiers at the 1936 Berlin Games. This article from the generally sensible Telegraph gives the impression that China is somehow the enemy of the West. Many Westerners still look at China today and see the China of Mao. They take the government's official Communist stance and equate it with Stalinism. If the West is to maintain its position of global dominance with a rising China, it must discard its misconceptions about China and engage it as the nation it is now, not as the nation it was in the 1970s.
China's "Communist" government knows full well that its policies have been straight-up Wild West capitalism, more extreme than those of any Western capitalist state. No one can truly claim that China's goal is a Communist dictatorship. Deng Xiaoping kept the communist label and Mao's god status solely for political reasons-to eliminate all that Mao had done would be political suicide at a time when the memory of the Cultural Revolution of the previous decade was fresh in the minds of the population. Deng would have gladly done away with the legacy of the man who had him and many of his allies purged from the government and thrown in prison. He knew communism didn't work. He knew full well that the new China would be all-out capitalist. China knows it isn't fooling any Chinese by calling itself communist. But it is certainly fooling plenty of Westerners.
Human rights certainly is a big problem in China. But anyone who says China has no intention of moving gradually toward a Western-style democracy has no idea how Chinese politics works. Much of the current generation of Chinese leaders has been educated in top Western universities. China is liberalizing, and it will only become more so as new generations of leaders take power. It is hypocritical to expect China to change overnight. In the past decades, individuals have received property and entrepreneurial rights, as well as an increased freedom to voice their opinions. Yes, dissent is still suppressed but you don't see masses of people being killed for criticizing the government. And the vast majority of Chinese are happy with their government right now. Without changes in official policies, the massive economic growth that has lifted countless millions of Chinese out of poverty would never have happened. And most Chinese would rather have money in their pockets before the right to free speech. Bringing your country prosperity is a far greater good than complete freedom. When Deng Xiaoping ordered the suppression of the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations, he did so to preserve order so that his economic plans would succeed. In China, economic growth comes before civil rights. And Western countries have followed much the same path. Look at Great Britain. It took centuries of gradual change from the Magna Carta to today for it to evolve into a liberal democracy. It certainly didn't change overnight. We can't credibly criticize China for not liberalizing because it is following the same path of gradual change that Western countries have.
Assuming that China's political elite is a static group solely concerned about preserving its own power is a huge error in analyzing Chinese politics. Even Mao Zedong himself was a different breed of Communist dictator. Stalin truly was concerned solely about his power and didn't care at all for his people or the communist ideology. Mao on the other hand was a true believer in the Marxist cause. His ideal of "continuous revolution" was meant to strive toward the ultimate goal of the egalitarian Communist state of Marx's theories. Of course he was concerned about power, it would be a lie to say otherwise, but Mao pursued his ideology because he wanted to bring prosperity back to China. He could have easily gone back to traditional imperial rule and crowned himself emperor if he wanted power. But he believed (albeit incorrectly) that Communism was the way to bring China into the modern world. And he was partially correct. Although millions died as the result of famines and political purges, by the end of his rule, China's population had increased dramatically, its industrial capacity had grown, the literacy rate was fast approaching that of Western nations, and China had secured its place as a world power. It is ignorant to say that China was worse off after his rule than before. China was pretty much stuck in the Middle Ages until Mao, and he dragged it with whatever force necessary into the modern world. He certainly committed his share of atrocities but looking at historical Western figures, we can't criticize him without hypocrisy.
China's political system is in many ways more geared toward success than those of most Western nations. Although corruption and connections play a huge part in Chinese politics, at its base, China's government is a huge meritocracy. You work your way up the ladder of power through hard work, education, and competence. As recent high-level convictions show, China is working on eliminating corruption, even going so far as using the death penalty for some senior officials. Only the most talented and intelligent can make it to the top. Looking at the backgrounds of senior Chinese officials, many are trained engineers, scientists, and economists-exactly the kind of people you need to run a country as large as China. Compare that to America, where we have lawyers making decisions about the economy, defense, education, healthcare, and scientific research. Which system would you pick to run a country?
China truly wants to join the global community as a partner, not as a ruler. The West remains frightened by the rise of a country with a strange language, strange culture, and strange politics. Our efforts to use our so called superiority to force China to conform to our standards (increase its currency value in order to rescue American manufacturers, take our side in sanctions against its allies, etc.) have only led to China playing by its own terms. The West has shown no signs of wanting to engage China as an equal, and so, China's policies continue to frustrate the West. China fully recognizes its power and the fear it puts into the West and it knows full well how to utilize that power. If the West does not change its attitude toward China, it will have no reason to cooperate with the West.
Paris Ad
A little late but oh well.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-responds-to_n_117137.html
My head asploded when she used the word hybrid.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/05/paris-hilton-responds-to_n_117137.html
My head asploded when she used the word hybrid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)