May 17, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
cynara
Occasionally, I blog:
http://blog.myspace.com/cynarad
Lately, I've blogged our trip diary (6 months driving from California to Chile). But the older posts are mostly political commentary.
http://blog.myspace.com/cynarad
Lately, I've blogged our trip diary (6 months driving from California to Chile). But the older posts are mostly political commentary.
Recent comments by this user
Hillary Agonistes: Why Doesn't She Concede?
End Game: Clinton's Exit Strategy
This was a large part of the reason I decided to vote for Obama. Her unwillingnes to admit that her vote for the Iraq war, not to mention her grandstanding threats at Iran, were more than a bit uncomfortably familiar to me - not backing down, even when it was the correct thing to do.
If she's willing to stay in a race she's already lost, do we actually think she would have the flexibility to revise NAFTA, which she championed from the beginning? I doubt it. I need a flexible president, not someone who grandstands to the finish. I voted for Obama. posted 05/07/2008 at 17:02:23
If she's willing to stay in a race she's already lost, do we actually think she would have the flexibility to revise NAFTA, which she championed from the beginning? I doubt it. I need a flexible president, not someone who grandstands to the finish. I voted for Obama. posted 05/07/2008 at 17:02:23
Who are the prisoners released from Guantanamo with Sami al-Haj?
Read the article. None of these men had a damn thing to do with Iraq. And, they were released, because they were determined by the US government to be innocent of any other crime. They were innocent men held without trial for over six years. Thats wrong. And it has NOTHING to do with Iraq. (Except that they and iraqis are islamic, but so most of Africa, Indonesia, and Malaysia, so what are you gonna do, attack the people of the world to get rid of Islam? Sorry, you were born a few hundred years too late to join in the crusades...) posted 05/07/2008 at 13:06:34
Two Years After the Big Immigrants Rights Marches, Where Do Things Stand?
Mexican people pressure their government all the time. Oaxacan teachers were on strike without pay for over six months last year, trying to obtain better working conditions, instead federal troops were called in and they were shot at. After the election, low income supporters of the losing populist candidate took over the Zocolo in Mexico city for weeks, nothing changed. The Mexican government doesn't listen to its own people, it listens to american $$$.
We are Mexico's biggest trading partner, responsible for 60% of its international trade. And we turn a blind eye as Mexican corporation and our OWN corporations in Mexico (Walmart, Coca-Cola, Ford, etc), break ever labor law and environmental law in Mexico. Our corporations lobby Mexico to keep wages low. Our trade agreements encourage Mexican corporations to cut costs by any means necessary, and these means are usually impoverishing workers and endangering their lives.
The US is part of the problem, not the solution. There is no pressure from the US to get Mexico to raise its wages, NONE, ZERO. And while we pressure Mexico to maintain its unlivable status quo, we get outraged as people flee from blue collar wages between 4.50 and 8.00 a day, which is not enough to buy food in Mexico.
Its easy to blame Mexico, while we encourage it to keep its people in poverty. Priceless hypocracy. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:42:24
We are Mexico's biggest trading partner, responsible for 60% of its international trade. And we turn a blind eye as Mexican corporation and our OWN corporations in Mexico (Walmart, Coca-Cola, Ford, etc), break ever labor law and environmental law in Mexico. Our corporations lobby Mexico to keep wages low. Our trade agreements encourage Mexican corporations to cut costs by any means necessary, and these means are usually impoverishing workers and endangering their lives.
The US is part of the problem, not the solution. There is no pressure from the US to get Mexico to raise its wages, NONE, ZERO. And while we pressure Mexico to maintain its unlivable status quo, we get outraged as people flee from blue collar wages between 4.50 and 8.00 a day, which is not enough to buy food in Mexico.
Its easy to blame Mexico, while we encourage it to keep its people in poverty. Priceless hypocracy. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:42:24
The US is part of the problem in Mexico. Our companies (Walmart, Coca-Cola, Ford, etc..) have a huge part in their economy, and their lobbying the goverment to maintain the horrific minimum wage of 4.50 a day, and look the other way as they themselves break Mexican labor laws. Then there are our trade agreements, NAFTA forces companies to compete soley on the basis of costs, and the quickest way to cut costs in a country with weak labor laws like Mexico, is to cut labor costs by any means necessary, this leads to poor salaries, no sick leave, unpaid overtime, etc.. And even if Mexico has a decent environmental protection law, NAFTA invalidats any local environmental law that effects "competitiveness", so who cares if Mexican villiges are polluted by heavy metal waste?
Its easy to blame the Mexican government. But where is the pressure from the US for the Mexican government to provide for its people? There is none. And our multi-national corporations and trade policies put the opposite pressure on Mexico. We pressure Mexico to keep its people in obscene poverty, and then act indignant and suprised when they flee the horrific conditions we helped create. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:34:30
Its easy to blame the Mexican government. But where is the pressure from the US for the Mexican government to provide for its people? There is none. And our multi-national corporations and trade policies put the opposite pressure on Mexico. We pressure Mexico to keep its people in obscene poverty, and then act indignant and suprised when they flee the horrific conditions we helped create. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:34:30
You can't apply for the first step for citzenship, a residents card, unless you meet one of the three conditions:
1) have an immediate relative who is a US citizen who will sponsor you
2) have a advanced university degree in the area of science or technology and a US employer willing to sponsor you
3) be from a refugee designated country like Cuba, where you are handed a green card the second you get to the US.
A poor Honduran/Mexican immigrant, who comes from conditions every bit as bad as Cuba, cannot be a refugee, probably has no means of attaining an advanced degree, and if they don't have a mother/father/son/brother who is a US citizen, they have NO means even applying for citzenship or US residency. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:28:36
1) have an immediate relative who is a US citizen who will sponsor you
2) have a advanced university degree in the area of science or technology and a US employer willing to sponsor you
3) be from a refugee designated country like Cuba, where you are handed a green card the second you get to the US.
A poor Honduran/Mexican immigrant, who comes from conditions every bit as bad as Cuba, cannot be a refugee, probably has no means of attaining an advanced degree, and if they don't have a mother/father/son/brother who is a US citizen, they have NO means even applying for citzenship or US residency. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:28:36
Its hard for the Mexican government to improve conditions in Mexico, when money from the Mexican economy is being sucked out of the country in the form of IMF and other international loan interest. US companies, including Walmart, Ford and Coca-Cola, huge massive stakes in the Mexican economy, and do you actually think that they are lobbying the Mexican government to raise minimum wage and better labor conditions, or to keep the status quo? And then there is NAFTA, where companies win international contracts based ONLY on a question of price. Without sufficient labor laws or environmental laws, the quickest way to cut costs in Mexico is to cut labor costs. NAFA gives Mexico every incentive to break labor laws, and none to improve them.
Between our loans, our multi-national corporations, and our trade agreements, we give Mexico no incentive to raise the standard of living of its own company and we put every pressure possible on it to maintain the status quo (a minimum wage of 4.50 a DAY, not enough to buy food to feed one person on the Mexican market).
Its easy to blame the Mexican government, but we do nothing to encourage it to change its ways. We, the US and its corporate allies, are part of the problem. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:24:51
Between our loans, our multi-national corporations, and our trade agreements, we give Mexico no incentive to raise the standard of living of its own company and we put every pressure possible on it to maintain the status quo (a minimum wage of 4.50 a DAY, not enough to buy food to feed one person on the Mexican market).
Its easy to blame the Mexican government, but we do nothing to encourage it to change its ways. We, the US and its corporate allies, are part of the problem. posted 05/04/2008 at 12:24:51
Democratic Race 'Too Mean,' Say Swift Boat Veterans
Umm, its called a "parody". For those of us with a sense of humor..... posted 04/21/2008 at 20:32:14
Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser
Move-On.org endorsed Barack Obama when he secured the support of over 65% of moveon.org members in a member vote. This is a very fair and completely typical metric by which political groups endorse a candidate. Prior to the endorsement, moveon.org campaigned for no one, so if Hillary could not win enough support of moveon.org members to secure the endorsement for herself, she has no one to blame but her own campaign. posted 04/18/2008 at 19:04:21
Developing: Hillary Clinton Slams Democratic Activists...
Not cool to put such a provocative title without a shred of a story to back it up... posted 04/18/2008 at 17:52:46
Leona Lewis' Video Too Dangerous For America?
An observant friend of mine once pointed out that the last time TV portrayed an interracial couple in a semi-real setting was "I love lucy".
Ever since, you'll see a whole group of black, white, Latino and Asian friends on TV, that when it comes to dating, somehow manage to find the only other person of their race in the whole program to date (heck, in Black Night, Martin Lawrence managed to travel back to the 12th century, and still managed to hookup with the only black chick in all of England! ). In Sex and the City, despite being set in multi-racial New York City, none of the girls ever hook-up with an African American, Puerto Rican or Asian guy. In real life, if someone went through is many men as they do, how could they not (by sheer probability) not end up at some point dating someone of another race???
When an interracial couple is portrayed on TV, the entire drama/comedy is about how awkward/uncomfortable/unaccepted such couplings are. I love Lucy came the closest to getting it right - yes there are stupid cultural differences that bug us about the other person, and there are awkward moments of cultural misunderstanding, but this is not the only constant theme in an interracial relationship, most of the time, people are focused on other things that have nothing to do with race. Different race and cultures may influence relationships, but they rarely define them. posted 04/17/2008 at 16:02:35
Ever since, you'll see a whole group of black, white, Latino and Asian friends on TV, that when it comes to dating, somehow manage to find the only other person of their race in the whole program to date (heck, in Black Night, Martin Lawrence managed to travel back to the 12th century, and still managed to hookup with the only black chick in all of England! ). In Sex and the City, despite being set in multi-racial New York City, none of the girls ever hook-up with an African American, Puerto Rican or Asian guy. In real life, if someone went through is many men as they do, how could they not (by sheer probability) not end up at some point dating someone of another race???
When an interracial couple is portrayed on TV, the entire drama/comedy is about how awkward/uncomfortable/unaccepted such couplings are. I love Lucy came the closest to getting it right - yes there are stupid cultural differences that bug us about the other person, and there are awkward moments of cultural misunderstanding, but this is not the only constant theme in an interracial relationship, most of the time, people are focused on other things that have nothing to do with race. Different race and cultures may influence relationships, but they rarely define them. posted 04/17/2008 at 16:02:35
Obama: Hillary, McCain Using "Very Same Words" Against Me
They did an equally frightening Hillary/Obama love child morph a few weeks back. They are equal opportunity when it comes to scary artwork. posted 04/15/2008 at 16:56:32
The $3 Trillion Shopping Spree
Let me try - For 3 trillion dollars we could have universal health care, solid roads and other infrastructure, and a decent education for our children. And to put a frivolous, senseless war above these REAL priorities is a complete crime. posted 04/15/2008 at 02:40:24
Boston Herald Prints My Fake News as Real News
Awesome Andy, being confused with real news, now thats validation!! (Well, validation of the quality of your work, and a bit of egg on the face of the obviously lazy/dumb/uninformed newspaper editors who are suppose to be informing America...) posted 04/14/2008 at 20:32:21
Stop "Old" Jokes Now!
Agreed. I'd never vote for McCain, but thats because I've examined his voting record, and found there are plenty of things that I was none to pleased with (anti-womens reproductive rights, anti civil rights, and somehow voting against the anti-torture CIA proposalt(!?)). The man's age should have nothing to do with it. Unfortunately, old age bias remains prevalent in this country.
For better or worse, all the candidates appear to be on an equal playing field of bigotry - there are certain Americans that won't vote for them out of prejudice. I don't know whether sexism, ageism or racism is more prevalent in this country today. But with so many terribly important issues facing us - the war in Iraq (that has cost us 3 trillion dollars, that could have gone to addressing our domestic problems - infrastructure, school funding, etc), the housing crisis, the shredding of habeas corpus and rights guaranteed under the constitution, the falling dollar, the falling stock market, etc, etc... it is depressing to think we may be willing to decide an election based on something to trivial as someones gender, the color of the skin, or how many birthdays they've had. Our country is in crisis, and our electorate wallows in the shallowness candidate personality stereotypes, and gotcha sound bytes. You'd think we'd have bigger things to think about... posted 04/14/2008 at 15:01:34
For better or worse, all the candidates appear to be on an equal playing field of bigotry - there are certain Americans that won't vote for them out of prejudice. I don't know whether sexism, ageism or racism is more prevalent in this country today. But with so many terribly important issues facing us - the war in Iraq (that has cost us 3 trillion dollars, that could have gone to addressing our domestic problems - infrastructure, school funding, etc), the housing crisis, the shredding of habeas corpus and rights guaranteed under the constitution, the falling dollar, the falling stock market, etc, etc... it is depressing to think we may be willing to decide an election based on something to trivial as someones gender, the color of the skin, or how many birthdays they've had. Our country is in crisis, and our electorate wallows in the shallowness candidate personality stereotypes, and gotcha sound bytes. You'd think we'd have bigger things to think about... posted 04/14/2008 at 15:01:34
Clinton: Gore And Kerry Lost Because They Were Viewed As Elitist
You do realize that it was the Huffpo that broke the Obama "bitter" story. That story was first broadcast on this site by a paid Huffpo citizen reporter, then it spread to every other medium. So, it would be hard to consider the Huffpo anti-Hillary, considering they have given her such rich material. posted 04/14/2008 at 01:44:18
Beijing 2008 and Tibet: The Orwellian Games
As to your comment::
"Now, I don't care if millions are killed by radial Muslims or USA troops but I'm sure your heart will be happy when they die because you stand for peace and with more Muslims died, there might be more of a chance for peace."
Thats a hell of a lot of assumptions on your part. I, for one, hope that we can peacefully exit Iraq and that no one dies. But, more to the point, Iraq was a much more secular country BEFORE we invaded. It became radicalized as a result of our poorly planned invasion that allowed radical Islamists to take control. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, it wouldn't be in the situation it is today. We are a huge part of the problem, only time will tell if we can fix what we broke without breaking it any farther... posted 04/10/2008 at 15:52:05
"Now, I don't care if millions are killed by radial Muslims or USA troops but I'm sure your heart will be happy when they die because you stand for peace and with more Muslims died, there might be more of a chance for peace."
Thats a hell of a lot of assumptions on your part. I, for one, hope that we can peacefully exit Iraq and that no one dies. But, more to the point, Iraq was a much more secular country BEFORE we invaded. It became radicalized as a result of our poorly planned invasion that allowed radical Islamists to take control. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, it wouldn't be in the situation it is today. We are a huge part of the problem, only time will tell if we can fix what we broke without breaking it any farther... posted 04/10/2008 at 15:52:05
"BTW, how does charging innocent Torch relay racers support Tibet? "
Because it raises awareness of the issue, which is the first step towards any solution.
Your statement, "About Tibet (and Sudan), no one in the USA really cares about these two countries and their problems"
That may have been true two months ago. But today, the world, the people of the US included, are taking a long hard look at the oppression of the Tibetan people. Maybe nothing will come out of this, but in this spotlight provides an opportunity to start addressing the issue, and its an opportunity that, I hope, the Tibetan people, their allies, and the Chinese government will take to change the situation.
People are people in Sudan, Iraq or Tibet. And at least in my mind, every human life is equally valuable. So the death or oppression of any innocent human being should be equally protested. Can I do a lot to change the situation from here in California? No. But raising my voice in solidarity to the Tibetan people, calling me congress people to ask them to pressure China on Tibet and to have a responsible withdraw plan from Iraq, and voting for politicians who don't support imperial adventures by our own government or our allies, is the very least I can do. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:51:21
Because it raises awareness of the issue, which is the first step towards any solution.
Your statement, "About Tibet (and Sudan), no one in the USA really cares about these two countries and their problems"
That may have been true two months ago. But today, the world, the people of the US included, are taking a long hard look at the oppression of the Tibetan people. Maybe nothing will come out of this, but in this spotlight provides an opportunity to start addressing the issue, and its an opportunity that, I hope, the Tibetan people, their allies, and the Chinese government will take to change the situation.
People are people in Sudan, Iraq or Tibet. And at least in my mind, every human life is equally valuable. So the death or oppression of any innocent human being should be equally protested. Can I do a lot to change the situation from here in California? No. But raising my voice in solidarity to the Tibetan people, calling me congress people to ask them to pressure China on Tibet and to have a responsible withdraw plan from Iraq, and voting for politicians who don't support imperial adventures by our own government or our allies, is the very least I can do. posted 04/10/2008 at 15:51:21
Our country may have lost its voice, but I sure as hell have not. I protested the Iraq war as an exercise in US imperialism where we impose our will on another people, and I would be hypocritical if I did not equally denounce the Chinese government for the same crime. Just cause the US does it, doesn't make it right. And forcing people to accept a government where they have no representation, no control over their local or state affairs, where another people are homesteading on their traditional lands, and where they are pressured to reject their cultures and beliefs, is wrong - it is wrong here, it is wrong in Iraq, and it is wrong in Tibet. posted 04/09/2008 at 19:32:54
Clinton Camp: It's A Miracle We're Not Behind In Pennsylvania
She's got the backing of the entire Pennsylvania political machine, EXCEPT Bob Casey. I think that kinda evens the playing field a bit.... posted 04/09/2008 at 17:09:43
Wake Up Democrats: You Are Hung up on Barack, but Hillary is What You Need
"She will protect you.". What exactly will she protect me from? Because I'm a hell of a lot more scared of fascism than terrorism. And when fascism comes to the USA it will be wrapped in the American flag and spouting patriotic slogans and speeches. I didn't embrace conservatism after 9/11, those who did were drinking that fascism koolaid. posted 04/05/2008 at 23:45:09
Government-Backed Health Search Engine Blocks The Word "Abortion"
I was thinking the same thing. This is just outrageous. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:12:10
The Democrats and the Black Vote
Well put, and a very scary real possibility. posted 04/04/2008 at 19:13:55
Is The Primary Making Me Paranoid?
Its a brilliant theory, but I think your definitely giving the campaign way too much credit. Sometimes, even candidates get lucky, and Hillary was lucky that this issue was raised in a non-threatening, sympathetic setting. Considering the Clinton campaign can't even seem to pay the caterers, I some how doubt they have the organizational skills to pull off this coup. posted 03/31/2008 at 17:07:31
Why The Hills Makes Me Love My Wife a Little Bit Less
I can totally sympathize with you disillusionment, I get the exact same reaction from my husband every time I turn on America's Next Top Model. I pride myself on never having watched "The Hills", but this is probably only because we don't have cable.... posted 03/31/2008 at 19:07:17
When I Think of Tibet
Great for them. Does this give them excuse to rule over the Tibetans without letting the Tibetans have a say in their own affairs? posted 04/07/2008 at 22:53:31
No, I don't believe Fox OR Chinese propoganda TV. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:52:40
So you wish whatever bad has happened to you on others? Real nice. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:51:09
Yes, its awful how censored the American press has become.
Your excuse all over this blog for China's actions is - "well America does it to". If america walked off a cliff, should the world blindly follow it? Just because another country has also committed atrocities, does not justify China's atrocities.
Both countries have been oppressive, both countries have been imperialistic. But American imperialism and oppression does not excuse Chinese imperialism and oppression. Both are wrong, and I choose to speak out against both evils. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:50:03
Your excuse all over this blog for China's actions is - "well America does it to". If america walked off a cliff, should the world blindly follow it? Just because another country has also committed atrocities, does not justify China's atrocities.
Both countries have been oppressive, both countries have been imperialistic. But American imperialism and oppression does not excuse Chinese imperialism and oppression. Both are wrong, and I choose to speak out against both evils. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:50:03
And your dismissal of Russians and their cultures, some of which are equally ancient as the Chinese, shows a lack of respect for Russian cultures and history. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:46:17
Or the Tibetans. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:43:28
Its not about "us" doing anything. Its about the Han government giving the Tibetans the right to decide what THEY want to do with their culture and government. Whats wrong with Tibetans deciding their own destiny, instead of the Han government determining it for them? posted 04/07/2008 at 22:43:04
I'll speak out on any atrocity I choose. I choose to speak out on both - I think that the Iraq war is an atrocity that should be protested and that the Han domination and imperialism over the Tibetans is equally despicable. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:41:09
I am less concerned with what Americans or Chinese believe or want for Tibet, as I am concerned with what Tibetans want for Tibet. It is their homeland, not the Taiwanese homeland, not the American homeland, and they should have a voice in how it is governed. The Tibetans should decide how Tibet is governed - not you, not me, not a European. The only thing that I am arguing for is for THEM to be given a voice - via vote, public forum, etc, to decide what they want for their homeland, and in 50+ years, the Han government has refused to let this happen. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:39:01
I think what happened in Iraq was a crime. What happened in Tibet is also a crime. I oppose imperialism where ever it happens - in Iraq or Tibet. I hope that after the election, Bush officials will be prosecuted for war crimes. I am very doubtful that the Chinese government will ever be forced to face trial for their crimes in Tibet. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:34:45
"...it is deplorable that traditional Tibetan culture loses out. But isn't this an issue generally of globalization, modernity, and rising incomes, and technological change?"
All of the things you mentioned do tend weaken traditional cultures, but traditional cultures usually invite these changes into their lives. But Tibetan culture is being weakened much quicker and much more deliberately by a force that they did not choose to let in - the Han government and people. Tibetan culture is being affected by Han settlers flooding in Lhasa, controling local businesses and politics, and constructing houses on what was Tibetan land. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:33:05
All of the things you mentioned do tend weaken traditional cultures, but traditional cultures usually invite these changes into their lives. But Tibetan culture is being weakened much quicker and much more deliberately by a force that they did not choose to let in - the Han government and people. Tibetan culture is being affected by Han settlers flooding in Lhasa, controling local businesses and politics, and constructing houses on what was Tibetan land. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:33:05
Ypi just don't get it. This isn't just about lofty civil rights goals - its about having Tibetan people having some control over their own government and culture. Its about the Tibetan people being ruled at the local, state and national level by the Han. Its about having their traditional lands confiscated and redistributed to Han settlers. Its about having your culture degraded by Han institutions. They don't want to be Chinese, they don't want to have their culture wiped out by Chinese culture. They desire some measure of governmental and cultural autonomy.
You say "Personally I believe in building strong economic, cultural, educational, charitable, and yes, sporting ties, to create stronger civil institutions in China"
Thats great for China, but how does it help the Tibetans feel like they have some measure of representation? posted 04/07/2008 at 22:27:59
You say "Personally I believe in building strong economic, cultural, educational, charitable, and yes, sporting ties, to create stronger civil institutions in China"
Thats great for China, but how does it help the Tibetans feel like they have some measure of representation? posted 04/07/2008 at 22:27:59
You obviously underestimate the worldliness of Huffpo commentators. But no matter. There are obvious parallels between the American revolution and the Tibetan revolt. Nobody likes to be ruled, especially ruled in absolute, by a government from afar with no representation. Its enough to make anyone revolt - American or Tibetan. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:21:52
Dude, you don't know anything about me. I've raged against American imperialism on many a blog. Just check out my HuffingtonPost profile, but just because I've raged against American imperialism doesn't mean I can't rage against Chinese imperialism too. I oppose imperialism, in any form, by ANY country. Its called being consistent - you should try it. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:19:27
I actually speak Chinese, so speak for yourself - I lived in China and I've studied Chinese in University. I also speak German and Spanish. Don't assume you know anything about me or my abilities.
I've never supported Bush and I've never voted for him. In fact, I've actively campaigned against him, whenever possible. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:17:00
I've never supported Bush and I've never voted for him. In fact, I've actively campaigned against him, whenever possible. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:17:00
Obviously the Tibetans don't feel the same way or there wouldn't be riots in the streets! posted 04/07/2008 at 22:14:27
Dude, I'm not pro-war in Iraq. In fact, I've been protesting it since the beginning. But its a VERY false dichotomy to say that because there is a war in Iraq, that we can't also be concerned with Tibetan oppression. posted 04/07/2008 at 22:12:28
In my mind, yes. People, meaning of course the consensus of the majority of a people in an area, should be able to determine what kind of government they are governed by.
That said, this hypothetical situation about the southwestern united states, is not very likely, since there is no ballot initiative or large organized movement in California or any other state to secede from the Union. posted 04/02/2008 at 21:24:31
That said, this hypothetical situation about the southwestern united states, is not very likely, since there is no ballot initiative or large organized movement in California or any other state to secede from the Union. posted 04/02/2008 at 21:24:31
And you never addressed the basic premise of my comment. Which was, if China has closed off Tibet, it is because something is happening here that they do not want foreigners to see. Most likely, the beatings of Tibetans.
However, the REAL issue at stake is not which side (the Han or the Tibetans) was taking a worse beating during the fighting. The REAL issue is what fostered such a resentment in the Tibetan people that they would take to the streets to try to fight back against their Chinese dictators. There are genuine grievances that the Tibetan people have with China. Namely, they have no representation in the Chinese government that rules over them. The Chinese government is actively attempting to displace Tibetans and settle Han settlers on their land. These are valid complaints, that have nothing to do with how a photo was cropped on a particular day.
This is the real issue, that the Chinese commentators have yet to address and cannot justify.
The violence that is happening now is just a symptom of the real problem - that the Tibetans no longer wish to be fully dictated by the Han. posted 04/02/2008 at 19:00:18
However, the REAL issue at stake is not which side (the Han or the Tibetans) was taking a worse beating during the fighting. The REAL issue is what fostered such a resentment in the Tibetan people that they would take to the streets to try to fight back against their Chinese dictators. There are genuine grievances that the Tibetan people have with China. Namely, they have no representation in the Chinese government that rules over them. The Chinese government is actively attempting to displace Tibetans and settle Han settlers on their land. These are valid complaints, that have nothing to do with how a photo was cropped on a particular day.
This is the real issue, that the Chinese commentators have yet to address and cannot justify.
The violence that is happening now is just a symptom of the real problem - that the Tibetans no longer wish to be fully dictated by the Han. posted 04/02/2008 at 19:00:18
Just because the Chinese government has found some instances where the photos were mis representative, you believe that nothing the western media says is true?
I cannot understand how you are so quick to distrust the western media - shot by hundreds of independent voices to confirm a story, yet you are more than willing to believe the Chinese media, which you know has been filtered and altered to meet the requirements of government censors. I would choose a dozen independent sources over one government source any day, in any country. Will some reporters make mistakes? Of course. Does this mean the entire premise of their story is incorrect? No. posted 04/02/2008 at 19:00:04
I cannot understand how you are so quick to distrust the western media - shot by hundreds of independent voices to confirm a story, yet you are more than willing to believe the Chinese media, which you know has been filtered and altered to meet the requirements of government censors. I would choose a dozen independent sources over one government source any day, in any country. Will some reporters make mistakes? Of course. Does this mean the entire premise of their story is incorrect? No. posted 04/02/2008 at 19:00:04
Well, that definitely settles. Sorry Tibetans, it appears you have no choice but to submit to Chinese rule, with no representation or self-determination for the rest of time. You have to submit to having your lands confiscated by Han settlers and your culture undermined by your Han rulers. Because in 1944, the US government put out a piece of propaganda referring to Tibet as part of China. (All sarcasm fully intended).
Who cares what the US though of Tibeten sovereignty in 1944?
What matters TODAY is the will of the Tibetan people. And TODAY, the Tibetan people are tired of being governed by the Han, with no voice in their own local or state affairs. They are tired today of having their traditional lands confiscated for Han settlement and their capital city being redesigned to fit the vision of their Han dictators. They no longer wish to be oppressed by the Chinese, TODAY. Regardless of what the US thought over 75 years ago. And quite frankly, I can understand where they are coming from. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:46:09
Who cares what the US though of Tibeten sovereignty in 1944?
What matters TODAY is the will of the Tibetan people. And TODAY, the Tibetan people are tired of being governed by the Han, with no voice in their own local or state affairs. They are tired today of having their traditional lands confiscated for Han settlement and their capital city being redesigned to fit the vision of their Han dictators. They no longer wish to be oppressed by the Chinese, TODAY. Regardless of what the US thought over 75 years ago. And quite frankly, I can understand where they are coming from. posted 04/02/2008 at 18:46:09
"That's a lot of HOPE, my friend. You really believe."
Absolutely, I believe that the government that governs a people should be determined by the will of the majority of the people. If a people don't want to be governed by a certain government, especially a government that gives them no say and in which they have zero representation, I believe that it is the right of the people to reject this government.
I am very hopeful that someday the Tibetan people will have some measure of control over their own affairs. And that decision about their capital city, the lands, the personal freedoms are no longer taken by completely by the Han. posted 04/02/2008 at 11:43:58
Absolutely, I believe that the government that governs a people should be determined by the will of the majority of the people. If a people don't want to be governed by a certain government, especially a government that gives them no say and in which they have zero representation, I believe that it is the right of the people to reject this government.
I am very hopeful that someday the Tibetan people will have some measure of control over their own affairs. And that decision about their capital city, the lands, the personal freedoms are no longer taken by completely by the Han. posted 04/02/2008 at 11:43:58
You are absolutely right, the southwest was populated by Indians and Mexicans before the Americans arrived. I, and most Americans, now look back with sadness and regret at the way the Indian people of this nation were treated over 100 years ago. Unfortunately, there is no way to undo the past.
Today China has a choice. Will it treat the people of Tibet with the same heavy handedness that the US treated its American Indians - Push them off their land? Repopulate previous Tibetan land with Han settlers? Rule over them giving them no voice in how they are governed at a local state or national level? Try to push Han culture on the Tibetan people?
If you can sympathize with the plight of the American Indians at the turn of the century, why are you so unsympathetic towards the plight of the Tibetans today? If the comparison you're making is accurate, and I believe that it is, the Chinese people should regard their own governments actions in Tibet with the same disdain they regard the American governments actions against the American Indians.
It is, unfortunatly, to late to save the American Indian culture here in California. American Indians today, only makeup 1.2% of the population and their cultures and language have been lost to years of forced "civilization" by the American government (between 1860-1930).
Do you wish for the Tibetan people to suffer the same fate? posted 04/02/2008 at 11:37:32
Today China has a choice. Will it treat the people of Tibet with the same heavy handedness that the US treated its American Indians - Push them off their land? Repopulate previous Tibetan land with Han settlers? Rule over them giving them no voice in how they are governed at a local state or national level? Try to push Han culture on the Tibetan people?
If you can sympathize with the plight of the American Indians at the turn of the century, why are you so unsympathetic towards the plight of the Tibetans today? If the comparison you're making is accurate, and I believe that it is, the Chinese people should regard their own governments actions in Tibet with the same disdain they regard the American governments actions against the American Indians.
It is, unfortunatly, to late to save the American Indian culture here in California. American Indians today, only makeup 1.2% of the population and their cultures and language have been lost to years of forced "civilization" by the American government (between 1860-1930).
Do you wish for the Tibetan people to suffer the same fate? posted 04/02/2008 at 11:37:32
I don't mind. At least their attempting to debate. I've lived in China and criticism or even critical examination is so frowned upon (not to mention dangerous), that accepting the government opinion on any issue is a given. So, just to be engaged in a debate with people with different political points of view is a big, probably exhilarating, step. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:38:54
You should study Indian history as in depth as you've studied Chinese history. India has also considered TIbet part of its empire many times over the years.
Of course if you had studied Tibeten history, in Tibet, with Tibetans, they would probably tell you that they have been independent for most of their history, regardless of what Indian or Chinese historians will tell you.
History books are always written by the winners. And history is never as black and white as it seems. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:02:27
Of course if you had studied Tibeten history, in Tibet, with Tibetans, they would probably tell you that they have been independent for most of their history, regardless of what Indian or Chinese historians will tell you.
History books are always written by the winners. And history is never as black and white as it seems. posted 04/01/2008 at 21:02:27
Hey here's link to the map of the first Indian empire:
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/Home/History/Asia/Early-Civilisations/Ancient-India/Maps/Maps-1.html
Looky, looky, it includes Tibet. Does that mean that India should have the right to rule Tibet? After all, it was on some ancient map.... posted 04/01/2008 at 20:52:37
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/Home/History/Asia/Early-Civilisations/Ancient-India/Maps/Maps-1.html
Looky, looky, it includes Tibet. Does that mean that India should have the right to rule Tibet? After all, it was on some ancient map.... posted 04/01/2008 at 20:52:37
"Why don't you support the Moorish Nation's aims?'
"all people have the right to self determination, here, in Iraq, and China."
By all people I am referring to the majority of the people. What percentage of the US belongs to and supports the goals of the Morrish nation?? If the majority of the US wanted to form the Moorish nation, then it would be the will of the people. Thankfully, the Moorish nation is a very small group of fringe lunatics that does not reflect the will of the people of the United States.
It maybe the Moorish nations goal to unify the 40 million African Americans in the US, but I've never seen a member of the Moorish union win a single local, state, or national election, or have any ballot measure they have sponsored pass in any state. Therefore I can surmise that their base of support does not reflect the will of the majority.
If the majority of Californians wanted to secede from the nation, it would be easy enough to get enough signatures on a petition to get the petition on the ballot, then if Californians truly supported this initiative they would vote for it come election. Neither of things have happened, so we can assume its not the will of the people. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:46:37
"all people have the right to self determination, here, in Iraq, and China."
By all people I am referring to the majority of the people. What percentage of the US belongs to and supports the goals of the Morrish nation?? If the majority of the US wanted to form the Moorish nation, then it would be the will of the people. Thankfully, the Moorish nation is a very small group of fringe lunatics that does not reflect the will of the people of the United States.
It maybe the Moorish nations goal to unify the 40 million African Americans in the US, but I've never seen a member of the Moorish union win a single local, state, or national election, or have any ballot measure they have sponsored pass in any state. Therefore I can surmise that their base of support does not reflect the will of the majority.
If the majority of Californians wanted to secede from the nation, it would be easy enough to get enough signatures on a petition to get the petition on the ballot, then if Californians truly supported this initiative they would vote for it come election. Neither of things have happened, so we can assume its not the will of the people. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:46:37
What does the Iraq war have to do with the situation in Tibet?
Perhaps your point is that we can't trust the western media. But I trust the diverse voice western media, censored by no one, written by independent journalist, to the Chinese media, where every story is written by a communist party member, censored and redacted by the government prior to release... The more angles we see of a story, as recorded by different sources and journalists, the closer we get to the truth. Unfortunately, the Chinese government doesn't want to let anyone know the truth, which leads me to believe that it must be pretty ugly...
BTW, your point about Chalabi that "the George Washington of Iraq" was not created by the press, that was the Bush administration and their opinion column allies. The press reported the reasons not to go to war, unfortunately, the America people were not listening. All the more reason to not trust the government, any government for your news, there is always a political agenda behind their version of the truth. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:37:58
Perhaps your point is that we can't trust the western media. But I trust the diverse voice western media, censored by no one, written by independent journalist, to the Chinese media, where every story is written by a communist party member, censored and redacted by the government prior to release... The more angles we see of a story, as recorded by different sources and journalists, the closer we get to the truth. Unfortunately, the Chinese government doesn't want to let anyone know the truth, which leads me to believe that it must be pretty ugly...
BTW, your point about Chalabi that "the George Washington of Iraq" was not created by the press, that was the Bush administration and their opinion column allies. The press reported the reasons not to go to war, unfortunately, the America people were not listening. All the more reason to not trust the government, any government for your news, there is always a political agenda behind their version of the truth. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:37:58
The Chinese government has done some good things for Tibet, but if Tibetans are rioting, it is because they are not content with the current state of Tibetan/Chinese relations. Namely, that China rules over Tibet and the Tibetans have little say in their own government. Also, China is importing Han settlers on to land that once belong to Tibetans. These are valid grievances. Regardless of what China has done right, they have also undermined Tibetan pride, culture, and self-determination, which is enough to make people unhappy and resentful.
I didn't approve of the war in Iraq - I railed against it before it happened, while it happened, and today.
And I don't approve of China's heavy handling of Tibet either.
As for actual footage, here is a clip from ABC:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4487304 posted 04/01/2008 at 20:19:04
I didn't approve of the war in Iraq - I railed against it before it happened, while it happened, and today.
And I don't approve of China's heavy handling of Tibet either.
As for actual footage, here is a clip from ABC:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4487304 posted 04/01/2008 at 20:19:04
I'd like to tell'em both, but neither are very good at listening. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:09:20
Unfortunately, nobody knows what is going on in Tibet, because the Chinese government is not letting observers in. If they would allow the foreign media to report, we could see for ourselves whether or not their is violence against Tibetans or violence against Han settlers. I am guessing that there is probably violence against both. Because why else would Chinese seal off Tibet? But to beat the Tibetans into submission in private.
The Chinese government learned one thing after the Tienemen square massacre, and that is, if you are going to kill and beat your citizens, don't do so with international press watching.... posted 04/01/2008 at 20:07:03
The Chinese government learned one thing after the Tienemen square massacre, and that is, if you are going to kill and beat your citizens, don't do so with international press watching.... posted 04/01/2008 at 20:07:03
I am extremely grateful that the Chinese government is allowing their surrogates and followers to read and comment on these blogs. I lived in China and I've seen the way that the Chinese government stifles dissent and opposing points of view. If by debating with us on these blogs, the Chinese are able to examine, and perhaps sympathize, with the other side of the argument, my day is made. Critical thinking and freedom of thought are essential to getting to the truth of any issue. posted 04/01/2008 at 20:02:12
Just because China decided to include Tibet in its maps doesn't it mean that it had any physical rule over Tibet.
Spain and Portugal, in the 1500s, created a map that divided every country between the two of them. That does not mean that Spain or Portugal ever ruled Japan, or Thailand, or half the other countries on the map, it just means that the mapmaker was ambitious.
Just because someone includes a region on a map of their country does not mean that they have influence in the actual governing of that people (i.e. foreign policy, taxation, domestic policy, etc.). posted 04/01/2008 at 19:52:47
Spain and Portugal, in the 1500s, created a map that divided every country between the two of them. That does not mean that Spain or Portugal ever ruled Japan, or Thailand, or half the other countries on the map, it just means that the mapmaker was ambitious.
Just because someone includes a region on a map of their country does not mean that they have influence in the actual governing of that people (i.e. foreign policy, taxation, domestic policy, etc.). posted 04/01/2008 at 19:52:47
Of course I don't condone violence. But violence is often a desperate expression of a valid greivance. In the case of the Rodney King riots, to which you are refering, the greivance was the absolute neglect of the poorer parts of LA, coupled with an extremely corrupt police department that had been unfairly discriminating against minorities in the community.
Obviously burning buildings is not the solution. But to come to a valid long lasting solution the party in charge - in the case of LA, the LAPD, and in the case of Tibet, the Chinese government, has to examine the cause behind the uprising. And I, bet it would be a lot easier for the Chinese to restore order, if they offered the Tibetan Monks an audience to air their grievances and propose possible solutions (like partial autonomy for Tibet), in return for a restoration of order. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:43:54
Obviously burning buildings is not the solution. But to come to a valid long lasting solution the party in charge - in the case of LA, the LAPD, and in the case of Tibet, the Chinese government, has to examine the cause behind the uprising. And I, bet it would be a lot easier for the Chinese to restore order, if they offered the Tibetan Monks an audience to air their grievances and propose possible solutions (like partial autonomy for Tibet), in return for a restoration of order. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:43:54
To true, we've often looked the other way as China violated international law, human rights, trade law, etc... Cause we're in big ugly debt to them. Same goes for Saudi Arabia.
If US foreign policy has been constant in only one thing, its been our constant hypocrisy... posted 04/01/2008 at 19:37:59
If US foreign policy has been constant in only one thing, its been our constant hypocrisy... posted 04/01/2008 at 19:37:59
"It is China and the culture that will be around long after this conflict wears away."
Nobody is arguing that China and chinese culture will not survive. The question is, will the Chinese government continue to rule over Tibet with an iron fist, against the will of the Tibeten people?
And will the Chinese continue to impose their culture on the Tibetans, in an attempt to subvert the Tibetan culture? (Which is also ancient, proud, and been around for thousands of years...) posted 04/01/2008 at 19:35:44
Nobody is arguing that China and chinese culture will not survive. The question is, will the Chinese government continue to rule over Tibet with an iron fist, against the will of the Tibeten people?
And will the Chinese continue to impose their culture on the Tibetans, in an attempt to subvert the Tibetan culture? (Which is also ancient, proud, and been around for thousands of years...) posted 04/01/2008 at 19:35:44
'They had no Ill will I could sense toward Chinese I could detect, amazing people."
Thats cause you never got drunk with a Tibetan. I got smashed with a Tibetan bar tender, in another Chinese province (I'm not saying where, because the Chinese authorities are obviously reading and blogging). Well, once we were out of our minds drunk, the litany of resentment against Chinese rule, and the remorse over Chinese oppression of his people came out. I was completely smashed (some mushroom/root hallucinogenic stuff was in this ancient brew) and, according to witnesses, he had convinced me to become a Tibeten freedom fighter by the end of the night.
The Tibetans are polite people, and they know better than to air their grievances with the Chinese authorities in public. But the grievances are present and they are very real. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:31:45
Thats cause you never got drunk with a Tibetan. I got smashed with a Tibetan bar tender, in another Chinese province (I'm not saying where, because the Chinese authorities are obviously reading and blogging). Well, once we were out of our minds drunk, the litany of resentment against Chinese rule, and the remorse over Chinese oppression of his people came out. I was completely smashed (some mushroom/root hallucinogenic stuff was in this ancient brew) and, according to witnesses, he had convinced me to become a Tibeten freedom fighter by the end of the night.
The Tibetans are polite people, and they know better than to air their grievances with the Chinese authorities in public. But the grievances are present and they are very real. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:31:45
Tibet has been considered part of various nations, including India, Great Britain, the Mongol Empire and China. Basically, whoever was the regional power at the time, laid claim to Tibet, at least on the map. This does not mean that this power actually had any physical presence in Tibet or that the Tibetan people considered themselves part of this country. And that is relevant question today, do the Tibetans wish to be a part of China? posted 04/01/2008 at 19:24:16
Tibet is not independent and has no valid claim to their independence no matter what religion they are or what color there eyes are?
A valid reason for any people to claim independence is that it is the will of the people to be independent from the government that currently governs them, especially if the government that controls them gives them no voice in local, state or national affairs. Just because a certain country has controlled another in the past, doesn't mean it HAS to control it in the future, especially if the local people wish to control their own state.
Instead of automatically considering the Tibetans "Bad people", why don't you examine the idea that people uprise when they have grievance that has not been allied. In the case of Tibet, Tibetans currently have no say over their own government or their own capital city, Lhasa. Tibetans are a proud people and like all people they want the right to have a say in their own destiny. While the Chinese government does not give them the autonomy to decide their own affairs, and while the Chinese government continues to give their land to Han settlers, the resentment will continue, with or without international support. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:19:06
A valid reason for any people to claim independence is that it is the will of the people to be independent from the government that currently governs them, especially if the government that controls them gives them no voice in local, state or national affairs. Just because a certain country has controlled another in the past, doesn't mean it HAS to control it in the future, especially if the local people wish to control their own state.
Instead of automatically considering the Tibetans "Bad people", why don't you examine the idea that people uprise when they have grievance that has not been allied. In the case of Tibet, Tibetans currently have no say over their own government or their own capital city, Lhasa. Tibetans are a proud people and like all people they want the right to have a say in their own destiny. While the Chinese government does not give them the autonomy to decide their own affairs, and while the Chinese government continues to give their land to Han settlers, the resentment will continue, with or without international support. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:19:06
"Funny, in a repressive, totalitarian sort of way..."
Not to mention, completely brainwashed. But nothing cures brainwashing like access to outside information and opinions and are they sure getting a mouthful of it here (and everywhere else on the blogsphere). I'm glad they're taking a look around. Critical thinking requires opposing viewpoints. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:10:03
Not to mention, completely brainwashed. But nothing cures brainwashing like access to outside information and opinions and are they sure getting a mouthful of it here (and everywhere else on the blogsphere). I'm glad they're taking a look around. Critical thinking requires opposing viewpoints. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:10:03
If the people of California wanted to be given the choice to secede from the US, I hope the US would honor our decision and would allow us to hold a vote on succession. Its not about "giving back" to anyone , its about the power of the people to determine whether they would like to be ruled by a certain government.
However, in California, local people do have control over local and state government and US states are given a certain measure of autonomy, which is one of the many reasons why there is no California movement to secede.
In the case of Tibet, Tibetans have no say in their government at the local, state or national level. They are ruled entirely by what they consider to be a foreign people (which is fairly accurate considering they have a different language, culture, and genetic make-up than Chinese), and it is not hard to imagine why a people would revolt against absolute rule by a culture and ethnicity that is not their own.
The native Americans, for better or worse, are no longer the majority of people that live in Manhattan or any where, except on Indian tribal lands which are autonomous. The Tibetans continue to be the majority of the people living in Tibet (though the Chinese government is working hard at changing this). I believe that the people that live in a place should have some say in how and by who their state is governed. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:07:23
However, in California, local people do have control over local and state government and US states are given a certain measure of autonomy, which is one of the many reasons why there is no California movement to secede.
In the case of Tibet, Tibetans have no say in their government at the local, state or national level. They are ruled entirely by what they consider to be a foreign people (which is fairly accurate considering they have a different language, culture, and genetic make-up than Chinese), and it is not hard to imagine why a people would revolt against absolute rule by a culture and ethnicity that is not their own.
The native Americans, for better or worse, are no longer the majority of people that live in Manhattan or any where, except on Indian tribal lands which are autonomous. The Tibetans continue to be the majority of the people living in Tibet (though the Chinese government is working hard at changing this). I believe that the people that live in a place should have some say in how and by who their state is governed. posted 04/01/2008 at 19:07:23
It has not been China for 2000 years, and even if the Chinese had been able to exert control over the people of Tibet for that long (which they hadn't) does that mean that Tibetans don't have the right to break free of this control today??
Check out wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#History
There are periods of time when Tibet is part of China, or rather, it is part of the Mongol empire and the Mongols rule over China and Tibet. There are also many periods of independence when the Tibetans are at times aligned with China, and at times they are not. Today, the Tibetans want the ability to choose whether or not they will be self-governing, regardless of what the past political situation was, they are asking for the right to determine their own future. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:20:27
Check out wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#History
There are periods of time when Tibet is part of China, or rather, it is part of the Mongol empire and the Mongols rule over China and Tibet. There are also many periods of independence when the Tibetans are at times aligned with China, and at times they are not. Today, the Tibetans want the ability to choose whether or not they will be self-governing, regardless of what the past political situation was, they are asking for the right to determine their own future. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:20:27
He's not retarded, he just doesn't speak English very well. My bet is that he is actually a Chinese government propoganda official, blogging to us from mainland China. Which would explain his lousy English, he's never had time to practice.. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:27:42
"I just returned from China 4 days ago and they are making fun of the mistake ridden western media."
And you believe the Chinese media whole heartedly? The Chinese government censors everything the media reports, so how do you know that it is accurate?
And don't you think the settlement of "innocent Han" in lands that previously belonged to the Tibetans might have caused resentment? If the Chinese government hadn't flooded the Tibetan capital with Han, and then put Han in all position of power in Tibet, maybe the Tibetan people wouldn't resent them so much and wouldn't be rioting today... posted 04/01/2008 at 16:18:17
And you believe the Chinese media whole heartedly? The Chinese government censors everything the media reports, so how do you know that it is accurate?
And don't you think the settlement of "innocent Han" in lands that previously belonged to the Tibetans might have caused resentment? If the Chinese government hadn't flooded the Tibetan capital with Han, and then put Han in all position of power in Tibet, maybe the Tibetan people wouldn't resent them so much and wouldn't be rioting today... posted 04/01/2008 at 16:18:17
Wow, we've got a communist propoganda parrot/mole in our midst. I'm honored that the Chinese government would take interest in Huffpo. But while we've got one government official reading, lets try to open his eyes a bit.
50 years ago Chinese people were on the verge of starvation due to the Great Leap Forward championed by Chairman Mao, not any outside influence. Thousand of teachers, doctors, etc, were forced into communal farms to grow rice, since they were not farmers and the rice was mixed from parts of China, it grew poorly, thats why people starved. Ask anyone in their seventies in China, they'll tell you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
"Dalai Lama he did not care of that either."
The Dalai Lama, 50-60 years ago didn't lead China, he lead Tibet. He did not have any influence in China, where they were starving. Tibet was also a poor country with no resources to help China. So, whether the Dalai Lama "cared" or not, there was nothing he could do to help this situation, caused by Chairman Mao. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:13:24
50 years ago Chinese people were on the verge of starvation due to the Great Leap Forward championed by Chairman Mao, not any outside influence. Thousand of teachers, doctors, etc, were forced into communal farms to grow rice, since they were not farmers and the rice was mixed from parts of China, it grew poorly, thats why people starved. Ask anyone in their seventies in China, they'll tell you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
"Dalai Lama he did not care of that either."
The Dalai Lama, 50-60 years ago didn't lead China, he lead Tibet. He did not have any influence in China, where they were starving. Tibet was also a poor country with no resources to help China. So, whether the Dalai Lama "cared" or not, there was nothing he could do to help this situation, caused by Chairman Mao. posted 04/01/2008 at 16:13:24
Umm. So what if Tibet had been ruled by China for thousands of years? Isn't it their right of self-determination to say that they do not choose to be ruled by China today? If a people wish to be self-governed and not governed by another people ( i.e. the Communist Party of China) what wrong with that?
As for your assumption that Tibet has been "governed" by China for thousands of years, thats tenuous,. Yes, there were times when China had a physical presence in Tibet, but for most of history, it did not. Just because some Chinese mapmaker drew a map of their country and included Tibet inside its borders doesn't mean that China physically ruled Tibet. Thats like saying because Spain and Portugal once drew a map of the world with every country outside of outside of Europe in the domain of one or the other that they truly ruled the whole world. Just because some mapmaker drew it, doesn't make it so.
Its false logic to say that just because there is a war going on in Iraq, we cannot protest the oppression of a people in another part of the world. I protest the Iraq war whenever possible, and I have since the beginning. ITo me, to protest the US imperialism of Iraq, and not condone it in other parts of the world, would be hypocracy. In my mind, all people have the right to self determination, here, in Iraq, and China. posted 04/01/2008 at 15:55:19
As for your assumption that Tibet has been "governed" by China for thousands of years, thats tenuous,. Yes, there were times when China had a physical presence in Tibet, but for most of history, it did not. Just because some Chinese mapmaker drew a map of their country and included Tibet inside its borders doesn't mean that China physically ruled Tibet. Thats like saying because Spain and Portugal once drew a map of the world with every country outside of outside of Europe in the domain of one or the other that they truly ruled the whole world. Just because some mapmaker drew it, doesn't make it so.
Its false logic to say that just because there is a war going on in Iraq, we cannot protest the oppression of a people in another part of the world. I protest the Iraq war whenever possible, and I have since the beginning. ITo me, to protest the US imperialism of Iraq, and not condone it in other parts of the world, would be hypocracy. In my mind, all people have the right to self determination, here, in Iraq, and China. posted 04/01/2008 at 15:55:19
New Report: The Race Chasm and the Clinton Firewall
My statement:
"The Latino vote pushed Hillary over the top in both states (at least popular vote wise)." referred to the statistics projected by the exit polls.
I think, at least based on ancedotal evidence in my own area, that Obama did much better with young Latino voters than older Latino voters. And the reason for this is not so much racism as it is political awareness. Statistically, younger Latino voters tend to be second generation and gravitate towards English language media, which has had an enormous amount of coverage of the presidential race. Older Latino voter are more likely to be first generation, and gravitate towards Spanish language television - Univision or Telemundo, both of which have done a very poor job of covering this race. Since coverage of the presidential race has been dismal in the Spanish Language media, older Latino voters tend to be less familiar with Obama, and therefore, less comfortable voting for him. All Latino voters are familiar with Bill Clintons presidency, and are more comfortable with the idea of voting for Clinton. Well, at least they are familiar with the fact that the economy was better during the Clinton presidency. The fact that the Clintons championed NAFTA, passed welfare reform, gave favorite nation trading status to China, and made immigration laws much tougher seems to be lost on many Latino and blue collar workers. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:30:31
"The Latino vote pushed Hillary over the top in both states (at least popular vote wise)." referred to the statistics projected by the exit polls.
I think, at least based on ancedotal evidence in my own area, that Obama did much better with young Latino voters than older Latino voters. And the reason for this is not so much racism as it is political awareness. Statistically, younger Latino voters tend to be second generation and gravitate towards English language media, which has had an enormous amount of coverage of the presidential race. Older Latino voter are more likely to be first generation, and gravitate towards Spanish language television - Univision or Telemundo, both of which have done a very poor job of covering this race. Since coverage of the presidential race has been dismal in the Spanish Language media, older Latino voters tend to be less familiar with Obama, and therefore, less comfortable voting for him. All Latino voters are familiar with Bill Clintons presidency, and are more comfortable with the idea of voting for Clinton. Well, at least they are familiar with the fact that the economy was better during the Clinton presidency. The fact that the Clintons championed NAFTA, passed welfare reform, gave favorite nation trading status to China, and made immigration laws much tougher seems to be lost on many Latino and blue collar workers. posted 04/01/2008 at 17:30:31
I don't see California or Texas on your chart. Of course, in these states a third large voting block is thrown into the mix, Latinos. The Latino vote pushed Hillary over the top in both states (at least popular vote wise). posted 03/31/2008 at 21:44:24
Carville Unloads: Richardson Misled, Promised He'd Back Hillary
Excellent point. They are free to switch with her , but hell hath no furry like they have for the ones that choose Obama (even if they never had publicly committed to her to begin with). posted 03/28/2008 at 00:09:39
25% of Anti-Obama Dems Think He's a Muslim
Somehow, in the successful smear campaign, which exists completely in an alternate reality, he can be both a Muslim and devote follower of a "crazy" pastor. posted 03/28/2008 at 12:47:39
I agree completely, and its just sad. posted 03/28/2008 at 12:46:07
A Chinese Muslim's Desperate Plea from Guantanamo
As painful as this is to read, Thank you for publishing this. People need to know about these atrocities. Unfortunately, I can see only one answer to Mr. Turkistani's question '"Why are we staying in this jail for so long?"'. Because Bush is still president. The next inauguration cannot come soon enough, especially for these men. It is insane, unbelievable, and a complete an utter crime, on behalf of the congress and the Bush administration that nothing, absolutely nothing, is being done to resolve this situation before that time. posted 03/28/2008 at 12:44:16
Hillary, 'Congenital Hawk,' Backed McCain on War -- Just As It Fell Apart
She does have much more in common with McCain than Obama. Which leads me to believe that Obama would be the stronger candidate, since he could better distinguish himself from McCain policy wise. If McCain and Clinton were the candidates, there would be little to differentiate them policy-wise in the minds of many Americans, so it would come down to the question of like-ability, in which case McCain wins. posted 03/27/2008 at 17:37:32
What Hillary Really Learned in the White House
Not to excuse Hillary. But I passed through Macedonia in the summer of 2003. My guide book, printed in 2001, that described Macedonia as "the only region to peacefully succeed from the Republic of Yugoslavia". Months after my guide book was published, Macedonia descended into civil war.
The bus passed through Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Bulgaria with destination Skopje, Macedonia. The round-about route, I later learned, was to avoid conflict zones. In Skopje, the streets were deserted. Only one ATM worked in the country. Buildings. were bombed out There were no cars on the highway except peace keeping tanks and a few goat carriages. I now know there was a travel advisory against Macedonia at the time, but was the country actually dangerous? I don't know. By noon, I was the only female traveler on the only bus heading towards the Greek border.
My point is, its hard to understand the security situation on the ground, even if your there. Its entirely possible there were warnings of possible sniper activity before Hillary went to Bosnia. The threats couldn't have been too serious, because Sinbad, Sheryl Crow, Hillary and Chelsea, wouldn't be the people to send into the battle zone. But were there threats? Its possible.
I probably exaggerate my Macedonia story a bit when I retell it. That said, I'm not a politician who has to watch her words. But visiting countries in conflict can feel a bit dangerous, whether or not the snipers are going off at that moment. posted 03/26/2008 at 19:47:28
The bus passed through Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Bulgaria with destination Skopje, Macedonia. The round-about route, I later learned, was to avoid conflict zones. In Skopje, the streets were deserted. Only one ATM worked in the country. Buildings. were bombed out There were no cars on the highway except peace keeping tanks and a few goat carriages. I now know there was a travel advisory against Macedonia at the time, but was the country actually dangerous? I don't know. By noon, I was the only female traveler on the only bus heading towards the Greek border.
My point is, its hard to understand the security situation on the ground, even if your there. Its entirely possible there were warnings of possible sniper activity before Hillary went to Bosnia. The threats couldn't have been too serious, because Sinbad, Sheryl Crow, Hillary and Chelsea, wouldn't be the people to send into the battle zone. But were there threats? Its possible.
I probably exaggerate my Macedonia story a bit when I retell it. That said, I'm not a politician who has to watch her words. But visiting countries in conflict can feel a bit dangerous, whether or not the snipers are going off at that moment. posted 03/26/2008 at 19:47:28
I don't want her words parsed for her benefit, I want her words parsed for our benefit. I want her supporters to join with Barack supporters, after she looses the nomination. Being diplomatic is an means to an end. And as G Bush, showed us by horrific counter example, diplomacy often works much better than "shock and awe". posted 03/26/2008 at 19:09:32
Educated or not, we will need her supporters in the general election, no point in driving them away here. I'd rather woo them with logic than batter them with insults. posted 03/26/2008 at 18:42:21
We don't have to, a real Northern Ireland peace negotiator called this claim a "wee bit silly", which says it all. This quote has been picked up all over the press and is just as effective as any video. posted 03/26/2008 at 18:40:42
I think that it will play out poorly for Clinton. That said we don't have to turn into petty name-callers for it to turn out poorly for her, that just makes us look bad. Time to sit back, and let this thing play out on its own. The American people can see the obvious inconsistency between her statements and the CNN video without us screaming "liar! liar!". posted 03/26/2008 at 18:29:51
From The Art of War:
In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
We can form a single united body, while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole, which means that we shall be many to the enemy's few. (Usefull words for the general election) posted 03/26/2008 at 18:24:06
In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
We can form a single united body, while the enemy must split up into fractions. Hence there will be a whole pitted against separate parts of a whole, which means that we shall be many to the enemy's few. (Usefull words for the general election) posted 03/26/2008 at 18:24:06
I would recommend using the word deceptive. Lying and dishonest are fighting words, and I'm sick of the inner-party squabble. Lets point out the fallacy of her argument - that it is deceptive, innacurate, not as others recall it, inconsistent with whats on video, etc... But the second we start throwing insults like "liar", "dishonest", "fibber", etc, we loose the upper hand. We can get our point across without sounding like hysterical bullies. posted 03/26/2008 at 18:22:35
I am totally on board with the 50 state strategy. Heck, I'm attending a DFA training next week.
And while the Clintons and their DLC maybe "yesterday's news", there are plenty of influential and hardworking Democrats still stuck in the past (read 60% of Pennsylvania voters, and I wanna win PA in the general election). I don't want to loose these allies, because we've got a long battle ahead of us against a real, much more threatening enemy - the right wing war mongers of the conservative party, and we're going to need every ally and vote we can get. It doesn't take any more effort to type a constructive convincing argument than it does to type an insult, and insults turn people off. I want to woo them to the light, not have them stab me in the back after dark.... posted 03/26/2008 at 18:05:46
And while the Clintons and their DLC maybe "yesterday's news", there are plenty of influential and hardworking Democrats still stuck in the past (read 60% of Pennsylvania voters, and I wanna win PA in the general election). I don't want to loose these allies, because we've got a long battle ahead of us against a real, much more threatening enemy - the right wing war mongers of the conservative party, and we're going to need every ally and vote we can get. It doesn't take any more effort to type a constructive convincing argument than it does to type an insult, and insults turn people off. I want to woo them to the light, not have them stab me in the back after dark.... posted 03/26/2008 at 18:05:46
"I call a warmonger a warmonger, and a liar a liar. Why should I compromise my integrity because she compromises hers?"
Saying things in a manner that is not intentionally offensive and inflammatory does not compromise anyones integrity. There are a million ways to point out the exaggeration of her foreign policy claims besides screaming "liar, liar!". We want to convince people who support her to come over, not offend them so much that they vote for John McCain out of protest. We could say that she "overstates", "embellishes", exaggerates, or" pads" her foreign policy resume. That she has been more than a little bit generous when describing her roll, that her foreign policy claims are "overblown", "inaccurate", or a "wee bit silly". (I personally like a "wee bit silly", its got a nice ring to it.) Anyway we point it out, the American people will get the point.
A tiny bit of subtility would go a long way in not threatening the egos, and thereby making enemies, of Hillary supporters, and not making us sound like jerks in the eyes of undecided voters. Having Hillary and supporters kneecap Obama for being ahead make her look bad, having us kneecap Hillary while she is behind, makes us look even worse. I want to win because our team is better than her's, not simply more brutal. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:57:10
Saying things in a manner that is not intentionally offensive and inflammatory does not compromise anyones integrity. There are a million ways to point out the exaggeration of her foreign policy claims besides screaming "liar, liar!". We want to convince people who support her to come over, not offend them so much that they vote for John McCain out of protest. We could say that she "overstates", "embellishes", exaggerates, or" pads" her foreign policy resume. That she has been more than a little bit generous when describing her roll, that her foreign policy claims are "overblown", "inaccurate", or a "wee bit silly". (I personally like a "wee bit silly", its got a nice ring to it.) Anyway we point it out, the American people will get the point.
A tiny bit of subtility would go a long way in not threatening the egos, and thereby making enemies, of Hillary supporters, and not making us sound like jerks in the eyes of undecided voters. Having Hillary and supporters kneecap Obama for being ahead make her look bad, having us kneecap Hillary while she is behind, makes us look even worse. I want to win because our team is better than her's, not simply more brutal. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:57:10
Please, for the love of the Party, tone it down a bit. Calling her a "liar" is not diplomatic, and it'll just further divide supporters, and come the general election, we will need the former Clinton supporters to win. Did she stretch the truth to strengthen her credentials? Yes. But who doesn't? Every politician running for every office in America will play up any little thing they've ever done if they think it will help them get elected. Have you seen anyones resume lately? (Just like every priest/preacher/minister has gone over the top in a sermon a time or two, especially after 20 years at the pulpit...)
Look, there was a war going on in the region, whether violence was flaring that day or not, and she went, albiet on a USO tour, to the country. It counts for something that she was willing to go, obviously it doesn't count for as much as she wants it to, but welcome to politics. Time to move on, and if we're going to talk about this issue,the core issue being that she has thoroughly embellished her resume, lets do it politely. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:35:26
Look, there was a war going on in the region, whether violence was flaring that day or not, and she went, albiet on a USO tour, to the country. It counts for something that she was willing to go, obviously it doesn't count for as much as she wants it to, but welcome to politics. Time to move on, and if we're going to talk about this issue,the core issue being that she has thoroughly embellished her resume, lets do it politely. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:35:26
This Is Your President on Drugs
"Throughout the trip, the Secret Service bagged all the President's poop and pee."
First thought, "eck", from an imagery standpoint, from a logistics standpoint and any other way you look at it. Second though, if the president was on prozac, it might start to explain things. It would explain alot about the actions and mindset of our president.
What I get even less than the mindset of our president (which I've explained to myself is simply a delusional idiot, therefore acts like one), is the mindset of the cult like following of women around him. Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes, Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donna Perino - they are all crazy about this guy - willing to follow him and support him to the ends of the earth. Its just weird - what the heck is the attraction? He's not intelligent, I've yet to see him be even remotely witty or interesting, he seems too self absorbed to dedicate his life to anyone of them (even Laura), yet, like some turn of the century Mormon family, they dote on him, they defend him, they seem to truly think that he is an amazing intelligent leader. Something that no one else, even his own vice president, can seem to remotely relate to.
All the women described above are considered bright, accomplished women, why attach themselves to this hero-worshiping harem dedicated to elevating an idiot?
I'd really like to get inside their head. Again I ask - whats so special about the guy? posted 03/26/2008 at 15:38:49
First thought, "eck", from an imagery standpoint, from a logistics standpoint and any other way you look at it. Second though, if the president was on prozac, it might start to explain things. It would explain alot about the actions and mindset of our president.
What I get even less than the mindset of our president (which I've explained to myself is simply a delusional idiot, therefore acts like one), is the mindset of the cult like following of women around him. Harriet Miers, Karen Hughes, Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice, Donna Perino - they are all crazy about this guy - willing to follow him and support him to the ends of the earth. Its just weird - what the heck is the attraction? He's not intelligent, I've yet to see him be even remotely witty or interesting, he seems too self absorbed to dedicate his life to anyone of them (even Laura), yet, like some turn of the century Mormon family, they dote on him, they defend him, they seem to truly think that he is an amazing intelligent leader. Something that no one else, even his own vice president, can seem to remotely relate to.
All the women described above are considered bright, accomplished women, why attach themselves to this hero-worshiping harem dedicated to elevating an idiot?
I'd really like to get inside their head. Again I ask - whats so special about the guy? posted 03/26/2008 at 15:38:49
The Latest Clinton Canard
"Who can forget the time "Rowdy" Roddy Piper hits Jimmy "Superfly" Snuka with a belt?"
Hate to be the one to point this out to you Cenk, but for everyone who wasn't a12 year old boy in 1986, forgetting this moment is pretty easy. :P posted 03/26/2008 at 12:33:09
Hate to be the one to point this out to you Cenk, but for everyone who wasn't a12 year old boy in 1986, forgetting this moment is pretty easy. :P posted 03/26/2008 at 12:33:09
War and Pax
I've been an investor in Pax World Balanced Fund for at least ten years. That said, when I checked out their Growth Fund, a few years back, it was obvious to see that they had huge percentage of shares in energy companies. Not terribly socially responsible. (I checked today, and its seems to have divested into other areas...) posted 03/26/2008 at 12:26:53
Blab It, Grab It: Why Evangelicals are Finally as Mad as Hell
I wonder where your "here" is. I live in California, while part of the US, most people out here don't spend much time thinking about "natas" (heck, I've never even heard of trying to listen for satan backwards, until this post.)
I thought the line "You'd be surprised how many words sound like satan if that's what someone's listening for." was quite insightful. People can always find evidence of whatever they believe threatens them, if they're paranoid enough.. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:20:13
I thought the line "You'd be surprised how many words sound like satan if that's what someone's listening for." was quite insightful. People can always find evidence of whatever they believe threatens them, if they're paranoid enough.. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:20:13
Rove Already Answered the GOP's Question of Who's the Weaker Democrat
Couldn't have said it better myself.... posted 03/25/2008 at 19:32:18
When Did "Immigrant" Become a Dirty Word?
"ILLEGAL ALIENS are sucking our systems dry. We pay BILLIONS to educate and provide health care to people who don't belong here. We should be using these BILLIONS on our own citizens"
That's debatable. Lots of people, on all sides of the political spectrum say they contribute more than they take out of the system. Check out this article from Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/lead_weight_or_gold_mine_what.html posted 03/26/2008 at 12:18:39
That's debatable. Lots of people, on all sides of the political spectrum say they contribute more than they take out of the system. Check out this article from Real Clear Politics:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/lead_weight_or_gold_mine_what.html posted 03/26/2008 at 12:18:39
Definitely, undocumented immigrants stepped outside the system and there are penalties, just like there are penalties for homeless sleeping on the sidewalk. But I don't think the immigrants, or homeless, should be viewed with the same judgment that we view thieves or murderers. The question was should *illegal* immigrant be a dirty word. This is a question of perception, and to perceive undocumented immigrants as we view criminals with criminal intent, as opposed to desperate people with no good options, is not being honest about their situation... posted 03/25/2008 at 20:16:10
K-Dog76, regarding marignymitch comment, it was obviously tongue and cheek - grow a sense of humor/sarcasm/irony.... posted 03/25/2008 at 20:10:39
They already lock up members of the Mara Salvatrucha for human trafficking, drugs and hate crimes against blacks... these are felony offenses, that would go to a normal prison. They are currently held in jails all over this country. An immigration jail would be used for processing people that violated immigration law, not gang bangers. posted 03/25/2008 at 20:09:39
See, you present this as if there really was a choice. Many "illegal" immigrants were legal immigrants who fell through the cracks of our immense immigration bureaucracy. It doesn't take much to become an illegal immigrant - a missed appointment, a late filing of the upteenth form, or simple bureaucratic mix-up often marks the fine line between a legal and illegal immigrant.
And thats for the people that have the option of being a legal immigrant. Many "illegal" immigrants are people didn't have the option of coming here legally, since without an immediate family member to sponsor you, an advanced college degree and an employer willing to sponsor you, you cannot apply for residency in the United States. Unless, of course, you are from a refugee designated nation like Cuba, where you automatically receive residency when you step on US soil. However, for indigenous people Mexico and Central America, every bit as poverty stricken as lower-class Cubans, but without special designation, this option doesn't exist. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:17:44
And thats for the people that have the option of being a legal immigrant. Many "illegal" immigrants are people didn't have the option of coming here legally, since without an immediate family member to sponsor you, an advanced college degree and an employer willing to sponsor you, you cannot apply for residency in the United States. Unless, of course, you are from a refugee designated nation like Cuba, where you automatically receive residency when you step on US soil. However, for indigenous people Mexico and Central America, every bit as poverty stricken as lower-class Cubans, but without special designation, this option doesn't exist. posted 03/25/2008 at 17:17:44
Here in San Diego, where I live, a private corporation is planning on building a private mega-prison, with a capacity of over 3,000 to hold people with immigration violations:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080320/news_1n20cca1.html
Yup, you and I, the tax payers, are going to be paying a private for-profit corporation to lock up Mexican grandmothers. posted 03/25/2008 at 15:21:57
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080320/news_1n20cca1.html
Yup, you and I, the tax payers, are going to be paying a private for-profit corporation to lock up Mexican grandmothers. posted 03/25/2008 at 15:21:57
One Raid at a Time: How Immigrant Crackdowns Build the National Security State
Hi Roberto,
Speaking of the "Domestic Security Apparatus", have you heard about the new fun going on in my neck of the woods?
A private corporation is planning on building a private mega-prison, with a capacity of over 3,000 to hold people with immigration violations:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080320/news_1n20cca1.html
Yup, you and I, the tax payers, are going to be paying a private for-profit corporation to lock up Mexican grandmothers. And the real kicker-in-the-pants? The ICE didn't even request this. They are building it IN ANTICIPATION of a need for more immigrant jailings.... posted 03/25/2008 at 20:31:30
Speaking of the "Domestic Security Apparatus", have you heard about the new fun going on in my neck of the woods?
A private corporation is planning on building a private mega-prison, with a capacity of over 3,000 to hold people with immigration violations:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080320/news_1n20cca1.html
Yup, you and I, the tax payers, are going to be paying a private for-profit corporation to lock up Mexican grandmothers. And the real kicker-in-the-pants? The ICE didn't even request this. They are building it IN ANTICIPATION of a need for more immigrant jailings.... posted 03/25/2008 at 20:31:30
Popular Stories on HuffPost
On Tuesday night's "Colbert Report," Stephen Colbert had fun with...
From the AP: Democrat John Edwards endorsed former rival Barack Obama on Wednesday, a...
*** UPDATED BELOW *** President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the...
As the odds get longer and longer, the obvious question is: Why doesn't Hillary Clinton gracefully concede...
Utterly insane goings-on tonight on...
It's a pretty well known fact that most women - attractive women -...
NEW UPDATE BELOW As violence in Iraq continues -- clashes today left 11 dead and 19 injured -- President...
Just off the House floor today, the Crypt overheard House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers tell two...
Tonight, Keith Olbermann unleashed what may well have been his...
The Democratic Party has finally decided who's going to break it to Hillary that it's time...
George W. Bush is unworthy of the presidency. He is a disgrace to himself,...
However, if you read Hillary's autobiography or listen to any interview with her, the only affair that she is willing to admit to anyone, including herself, that happened is Monica Lewinsky. She has spent her entire adult life willing to divorce herself from reality in order to pursue her goals, why should this election be any different? posted 05/14/2008 at 11:42:58