The Republican gubernatorial candidate in Colorado Dan Maes claims that Denver mayor John Hickenlooper's quest to make Denver more bike friendly is a plot for UN control of America.
According to the Denver Post, Maes believes that because Mayor Hickenlooper agreed to the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, along with hundreds of other cities and towns around the country, that anything suggested by the UN council would infringe on our personal freedoms.
Maes told his 50 supporters in a Denver suburb, "This is all very well-disguised, but it will be exposed." He added, "This is bigger than it looks like on the surface, and it could threaten our personal freedoms."
So, Maes believes that it's a bad idea for Americans to drive less and bike more. Instead of saving money on gas and getting more exercise, we should all get fat and drive gas guzzlers because this is America and we have a God-given right to be fat and wasteful.
At least he has conspiracy theorists on his side come election day.
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Friday, February 05, 2010
A Game of Chicken
It's time for another round of tit for tat.
After my first year in China, the government imposed new restrictions on visas for Americans (among others). Americans were charged more than other nationalities for visas, and the multiple-entry and long-term tourist visas were eliminated. The reasoning was that Chinese citizens had difficulty obtaining US visas and the price was higher than for other nationalities. Of course, that didn't bother me much because I didn't have to pay for my visas through work (though obtaining Jia's US visas were difficult).
Now, because the US imposed dumping tariffs on Chinese-made tires, China is now doing the same for US chicken parts. I already knew that the US exported large quantities of frozen chicken feet to China, but I didn't realize chicken wings were also included (I thought Americans ate enough Buffalo wings to keep those parts at home).
The article claims that the feet and wings are "virtually worthless" in the US. As I've never seen chicken feet for sale at the major grocery stores, I would agree with that statement. However, wings are usually sold in packages for about 99 cents a pound, which is cheaper than other parts of the chicken, but more expensive than chicken leg quarters.
The article also states that individual companies can appeal the tariff, thus significantly reducing it for that particular company. Therefore, larger companies like Tyson will have lower tariffs on their chicken parts. I'm not sure if this is standard practice in such situations, but what would happen if every chicken part importer appealed the government's ruling?
After my first year in China, the government imposed new restrictions on visas for Americans (among others). Americans were charged more than other nationalities for visas, and the multiple-entry and long-term tourist visas were eliminated. The reasoning was that Chinese citizens had difficulty obtaining US visas and the price was higher than for other nationalities. Of course, that didn't bother me much because I didn't have to pay for my visas through work (though obtaining Jia's US visas were difficult).
Now, because the US imposed dumping tariffs on Chinese-made tires, China is now doing the same for US chicken parts. I already knew that the US exported large quantities of frozen chicken feet to China, but I didn't realize chicken wings were also included (I thought Americans ate enough Buffalo wings to keep those parts at home).
The article claims that the feet and wings are "virtually worthless" in the US. As I've never seen chicken feet for sale at the major grocery stores, I would agree with that statement. However, wings are usually sold in packages for about 99 cents a pound, which is cheaper than other parts of the chicken, but more expensive than chicken leg quarters.
The article also states that individual companies can appeal the tariff, thus significantly reducing it for that particular company. Therefore, larger companies like Tyson will have lower tariffs on their chicken parts. I'm not sure if this is standard practice in such situations, but what would happen if every chicken part importer appealed the government's ruling?
Thursday, January 28, 2010
What I Learned from the State of the Union
Of course, I didn't learn much because I lost interest after the first half hour, but I did take a few things away from Obama's first attempt at rallying the nation around his policies and plans.
1. Obama made some good points, but most of the speech was BS and filler. He could've cut out an hour of it. He should hire me to edit his speeches.
2. There is way too much unnecessary applause from the audience, but it's only the President's own party. Just eliminate applause from the State of the Union and save some time.
3. Anecdotes and poor attempts at humor do not belong in important political speeches.
4. America needs to be more like China. Unfortunately, he forgot to mention in what way.
5. It's always important to blame the previous guy in charge for every problem.
6. Beer does not make long political speeches any more interesting.
7. Obama thinks there's too much petty partisan bickering. The only solution to this problem is reintroducing duels among politicians. This will also create job openings in Washington.
8. The Republican rebuttal was even more boring than the State of the Union. I can form my own opinions about the speech without being told what to think by a corrupt politician.
1. Obama made some good points, but most of the speech was BS and filler. He could've cut out an hour of it. He should hire me to edit his speeches.
2. There is way too much unnecessary applause from the audience, but it's only the President's own party. Just eliminate applause from the State of the Union and save some time.
3. Anecdotes and poor attempts at humor do not belong in important political speeches.
4. America needs to be more like China. Unfortunately, he forgot to mention in what way.
5. It's always important to blame the previous guy in charge for every problem.
6. Beer does not make long political speeches any more interesting.
7. Obama thinks there's too much petty partisan bickering. The only solution to this problem is reintroducing duels among politicians. This will also create job openings in Washington.
8. The Republican rebuttal was even more boring than the State of the Union. I can form my own opinions about the speech without being told what to think by a corrupt politician.
Friday, January 22, 2010
She's Not as Popular as Bill
Hillary Clinton hurt the feelings of the Chinese with her public speech about Internet freedom, which was seen as overt political support for Google in China. This comes only a day after the Chinese government claimed that Google's move had no political connection to the US government.
Ma Zhaoxu, an official government spokesman, refuted Clinton's argument by stating, "[Clinton] insinuated China restricts Internet freedom....We are firmly against the words and deeds contrary to the facts."
There you have it folks, more proof that the Chinese government does not restrict Internet freedom and the Great Firewall of China is just a myth created by imperialist Western powers. Just don't tell that to the residents of Xinjiang province who have been without an open Internet connection since July. But they can access four Chinese Web sites now (more detailed information can be found at Far West China).
Ma Zhaoxu, an official government spokesman, refuted Clinton's argument by stating, "[Clinton] insinuated China restricts Internet freedom....We are firmly against the words and deeds contrary to the facts."
There you have it folks, more proof that the Chinese government does not restrict Internet freedom and the Great Firewall of China is just a myth created by imperialist Western powers. Just don't tell that to the residents of Xinjiang province who have been without an open Internet connection since July. But they can access four Chinese Web sites now (more detailed information can be found at Far West China).
Monday, November 02, 2009
Rebellious Voting Activity
I have quite a few reasons why I will not vote for a major party candidate in tomorrow's gubernatorial election in New Jersey. I'm tired of hearing about people voting against one candidate or the other--this seems to be a long-running trend around here. We should be willing to vote for a candidate rather than against one.
To start with, I never liked Democrat Jon Corzine--I didn't vote for him for the Senate and didn't vote for him in his first run for governor (I wrote in a candidate for that one). The problem has been that the Republicans have never had a half-decent candidate to run against Corzine. The Republican candidate this year is Chris Christie--thus reaffirming my suspicions that the Republicans have no idea what they're doing. With these two despicable men do not deserve my vote, and I don't believe they deserve anyone else's vote.
I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, especially when the lesser evil is only incrementally less evil. I may not like Corzine, but I know Christie will not do any better for the state of New Jersey. Choosing between these two is like choosing between the electric chair and a lethal injection. Therefore, I will throw my vote to Chris Daggett.
I don't really think Daggett will do any better than Corzine or Christie, but I want to send a message to the Republicans and Democrats that I am fed up. I could choose one of the other third-party candidates, but they stand even less of a chance of winning.
If you're fed up with the politics of New Jersey, I encourage you to vote for a third-party candidate. We need to fix this state instead of allowing the wealthy to serve their own needs in office.
To start with, I never liked Democrat Jon Corzine--I didn't vote for him for the Senate and didn't vote for him in his first run for governor (I wrote in a candidate for that one). The problem has been that the Republicans have never had a half-decent candidate to run against Corzine. The Republican candidate this year is Chris Christie--thus reaffirming my suspicions that the Republicans have no idea what they're doing. With these two despicable men do not deserve my vote, and I don't believe they deserve anyone else's vote.
I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils, especially when the lesser evil is only incrementally less evil. I may not like Corzine, but I know Christie will not do any better for the state of New Jersey. Choosing between these two is like choosing between the electric chair and a lethal injection. Therefore, I will throw my vote to Chris Daggett.
I don't really think Daggett will do any better than Corzine or Christie, but I want to send a message to the Republicans and Democrats that I am fed up. I could choose one of the other third-party candidates, but they stand even less of a chance of winning.
If you're fed up with the politics of New Jersey, I encourage you to vote for a third-party candidate. We need to fix this state instead of allowing the wealthy to serve their own needs in office.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
In Healthcare Hell
Jia and I have started looking at healthcare options through her new job. It ain't cheap. Even with the company paying part of the bill, it would still cost about $470 per month to cover both of us. This is a ridiculous amount of money when one considers that we're not making a lot. I actually think we might spend less if we went to doctors without insurance.
But Obama and Congress are sluggishly working on a plan that is supposed to save us all from this excessively expensive necessity. No, what I meant to say is that they are working on a way to just screw us some more.
Everything I've read about this healthcare plan is just not what America needs. I don't really care about the higher taxes for the rich--they have enough to go around anyway. But those tax dollars will go to help the uninsured--it won't help people like Jia and me who get health insurance through work. None of the plans I've read about will help those who actually have to pay the excessive fees through work.
There is a simple solution that every politician seems to have overlooked. Reform the legal system to cut down on costs to healthcare providers. Here's how it works now: there are numerous malpractice lawsuits brought against insurers, hospitals, and doctors every year, but only a few of the cases are successful. Still, the insurers, hospitals, and doctors have to pay the legal fees for cases in which they are found to not be at fault. Quite a few of these cases are also frivolous. But healthcare providers still have to pay for the defense. If the legal system were reformed to so that if a lawsuit is unsuccessful the plaintiff would have to pay the defense's legal fees, it would reduce the cost of malpractice insurance, and the savings would then be passed on to the people paying for health insurance. This would also relieve the burden of frivolous lawsuits clogging the court system.
This is by no means the solution to all the healthcare problems in America--there are plenty of other problems that need to be addressed (i.e. greedy CEOs at insurance companies jacking up the premiums to fill their bloated wallets). However, this is an important first step toward improving the quality of life in America.
I'm confident that politicians will never listen to such a sensible argument. They'd rather listen to lobbyists and screw up our future.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Electoral Blues
I got reminder of my patriotic duty in the mail today. We have an election coming up here in New Jersey.
No one really cares about the local elections--most of the candidates run unopposed. And seeing as there's very little campaigning, no one really knows anything about the candidates anyway.
The big election is for governor. We have our choice between two egotistical, wealthy scumbags. It looks like the same election we had four years ago. I just can't bring myself to vote for either of these two candidates. I've always thought Jon Corzine was a dirty politician who is corrupt, but hasn't been caught yet. And Chris Christie looks like the same candidate, except he refuses to provide any details to his plans, no matter how vague.
The joys of democracy continue here. I think I'll go vomit instead of vote.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Counterproductive Censorship
It's the run up to that all-important anniversary of the event that never really happened in China 20 years ago. I'm not surprised, and most others aren't either, that the government decided to "harmonize" a great many Web sites that could endanger the harmonious socialist society with Chinese characteristics. Those Web sites include Twitter, Flickr, Hotmail, Youtube, WordPress, Blogger, and the rest of the decent half of the Internet.
I won't get into the seemingly random Great Firewall that blocks harmless sites but leaves others with more detrimental information open (they still have some pornographic sites open). The more important question to ask about the Great Firewall is what does it really achieve? Does it preserve this harmonious society ideology?
The information that the Chinese government wants to hide from its citizens are those that include voices of dissent--human rights advocates, environmental activists, anti-corruption activists, and democratic reformers. Blocking information from such groups will keep much of the population in the dark, but most of those people wouldn't care about such information to begin with. Students who are indoctrinated in the CCP propaganda brush aside dissent without ever considering the purpose behind it. And the common Chinese citizen doesn't give much thought to politics.
Those involved in dissent are also not hurt by the Great Firewall--to them it's more of an inconvenience. There are plenty of ways around the blocks--VPNs and proxy servers. If they want information, they can get it. If they want to spread information, they will find a way.
The greatest problem for the government this time around is that they blocked access to Web sites that the common Chinese Internet user uses. There are many people there who use Twitter and Hotmail. To these people, it's more than an inconvenience. These people may not have cared about online censorship previously, but now it affects them. If anything, it can turn a politically apathetic person into a vocal critic. It's the small curbs that can do the most damage.
I won't get into the seemingly random Great Firewall that blocks harmless sites but leaves others with more detrimental information open (they still have some pornographic sites open). The more important question to ask about the Great Firewall is what does it really achieve? Does it preserve this harmonious society ideology?
The information that the Chinese government wants to hide from its citizens are those that include voices of dissent--human rights advocates, environmental activists, anti-corruption activists, and democratic reformers. Blocking information from such groups will keep much of the population in the dark, but most of those people wouldn't care about such information to begin with. Students who are indoctrinated in the CCP propaganda brush aside dissent without ever considering the purpose behind it. And the common Chinese citizen doesn't give much thought to politics.
Those involved in dissent are also not hurt by the Great Firewall--to them it's more of an inconvenience. There are plenty of ways around the blocks--VPNs and proxy servers. If they want information, they can get it. If they want to spread information, they will find a way.
The greatest problem for the government this time around is that they blocked access to Web sites that the common Chinese Internet user uses. There are many people there who use Twitter and Hotmail. To these people, it's more than an inconvenience. These people may not have cared about online censorship previously, but now it affects them. If anything, it can turn a politically apathetic person into a vocal critic. It's the small curbs that can do the most damage.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
View from the People
With the election officially over and having watched the re-broadcast of the Daily Show's election coverage, I headed out to Carrefour for food (a necessity for most people).
On my way home, I stopped to buy corn from the sidewalk vendor across the street from the supermarket. His first question as I poked through the corn to find the best ears was, "What country are you from?" When I responded that I'm from the US, he congratulated me on the election of Obama. I was rather surprised that the common, unlicensed street vendor in China knew the election result only a few hours after it was officially announced (there aren't any TVs near this street corner).
The vendor then asked if I liked Obama. My response was he was OK and I liked him more than McCain. I wanted to say more, but I have no idea what the Chinese word is for "politician." My intended phrase would've been, "I don't like any politicians."
This should be a note to Obama that China is watching. For now, they actually like him. Who knows how long that will last.
On my way home, I stopped to buy corn from the sidewalk vendor across the street from the supermarket. His first question as I poked through the corn to find the best ears was, "What country are you from?" When I responded that I'm from the US, he congratulated me on the election of Obama. I was rather surprised that the common, unlicensed street vendor in China knew the election result only a few hours after it was officially announced (there aren't any TVs near this street corner).
The vendor then asked if I liked Obama. My response was he was OK and I liked him more than McCain. I wanted to say more, but I have no idea what the Chinese word is for "politician." My intended phrase would've been, "I don't like any politicians."
This should be a note to Obama that China is watching. For now, they actually like him. Who knows how long that will last.
Monday, November 03, 2008
Wake Me When It's Over
Tomorrow after work, I will return home and follow the US Presidential election until there is a clear winner. At such time, I will be sure to go drink a few beers to forget that this election ever happened. It's not that I'm disappointed in the candidates (I hate all politicians equally), I just don't like long, drawn-out elections. This thing should've been over months ago.
Looking at the economy and the price tag for this election year (how many years has it been going on?). While poverty levels and foreclosures are rising, our elected officials are spending billions of dollars on campaigns aimed at people who have mostly made their decisions months ago. It's still hard to believe that two people can spend more than $300 billion on a single election. To put this in perspective, the federal government is spending about $100 billion this year on education.
I urge everyone who is eligible to vote--I don't care who you vote for. But, I do encourage everyone to support election reform for the future because the current process has gotten out of hand. My proposal is simple: shorten the allotted time for campaigning to two months and eliminate all TV and radio ads from the political parties and independent organizations. There should also be weekly debates in the two months prior to the election. This plan will save billions of dollars, cut down on the headaches from stupid advertising, and force politicians to actually work instead of taking a year off for campaigning.
Looking at the economy and the price tag for this election year (how many years has it been going on?). While poverty levels and foreclosures are rising, our elected officials are spending billions of dollars on campaigns aimed at people who have mostly made their decisions months ago. It's still hard to believe that two people can spend more than $300 billion on a single election. To put this in perspective, the federal government is spending about $100 billion this year on education.
I urge everyone who is eligible to vote--I don't care who you vote for. But, I do encourage everyone to support election reform for the future because the current process has gotten out of hand. My proposal is simple: shorten the allotted time for campaigning to two months and eliminate all TV and radio ads from the political parties and independent organizations. There should also be weekly debates in the two months prior to the election. This plan will save billions of dollars, cut down on the headaches from stupid advertising, and force politicians to actually work instead of taking a year off for campaigning.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Soiled Relationship
This is not a good week for Sino-US relations.
It began with the US signing a $6.4 billion arms sale agreement with Taiwan, which is never a pleasant topic in China. Even with pledges from the US to adhere to the "One China Policy," and whatever other propaganda slogans the Chinese government makes trade partners agree to in some manner, it still makes deals with Taiwan every so often (dating back to the 1970s, I believe). My opinion is that this deal doesn't even make a dent in the $700 billion the government just blew on the economy. I think we need to ask Taiwan for more money on this deal.
And today, a US judge ordered the release of 17 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo. The 17 Guantanamo detainees are Uyghers from Xinjiang. China claims that they are from the East Turkestan Islamic Movement--an organization that wants Xinjiang to be independent from China. The court ruled that they are not enemy combatants and should be released--possibly into the US. China wants these 17 Uyghers repatriated so that it can imprison them upon return. These detainees claimed that they were in Afghanistan to escape persecution in China, and are now seeking political asylum in the US (not all that uncommon for some Uyhgurs). However, there's also a possibility that the US will seek asylum for them in other countries rather than repatriate them. I have no opinion on this issue, because I don't have all the information.
Just have to wonder what restrictions will arise for Americans and American businesses in China in the coming weeks.
It began with the US signing a $6.4 billion arms sale agreement with Taiwan, which is never a pleasant topic in China. Even with pledges from the US to adhere to the "One China Policy," and whatever other propaganda slogans the Chinese government makes trade partners agree to in some manner, it still makes deals with Taiwan every so often (dating back to the 1970s, I believe). My opinion is that this deal doesn't even make a dent in the $700 billion the government just blew on the economy. I think we need to ask Taiwan for more money on this deal.
And today, a US judge ordered the release of 17 Chinese Muslims from Guantanamo. The 17 Guantanamo detainees are Uyghers from Xinjiang. China claims that they are from the East Turkestan Islamic Movement--an organization that wants Xinjiang to be independent from China. The court ruled that they are not enemy combatants and should be released--possibly into the US. China wants these 17 Uyghers repatriated so that it can imprison them upon return. These detainees claimed that they were in Afghanistan to escape persecution in China, and are now seeking political asylum in the US (not all that uncommon for some Uyhgurs). However, there's also a possibility that the US will seek asylum for them in other countries rather than repatriate them. I have no opinion on this issue, because I don't have all the information.
Just have to wonder what restrictions will arise for Americans and American businesses in China in the coming weeks.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Buying the Nation
While the US is in the grips of a financial crisis and the government is busy with a poorly-thought-out bail-out plan, one has to wonder where the money is coming from. Of course, most of the money is coming from the taxpayers who are defaulting on their mortgages. The rest of the country, it seems, it owned by part of Asia.
According to China Daily, China is the second largest holder of US government bonds with a total of $518.7 billion, just a few billion behind Japan. Maybe the government should consider coaxing more of the American public into purchasing some of the debt it's creating to balance out what it owes foreign countries.
I'm just waiting to see who will buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe I'll print up some deeds and try to sell it around Shenzhen.
According to China Daily, China is the second largest holder of US government bonds with a total of $518.7 billion, just a few billion behind Japan. Maybe the government should consider coaxing more of the American public into purchasing some of the debt it's creating to balance out what it owes foreign countries.
I'm just waiting to see who will buy the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe I'll print up some deeds and try to sell it around Shenzhen.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Wish I Had a Golden Parachute
I am thoroughly disgusted by the financial crisis in the US. The financial institutions screwed up beyond belief. How can such companies be so stupid with money? I didn't study finance, accounting, or economics in college, but even I know what they did was inappropriate for any business that wants to stay afloat.
I am even more disgusted by my own government for bailing out these failed companies. I've read a few articles about this from liberal and conservative analysts, and they all think this is a bad idea. I concur. Why should the government reward a failure with billions of taxpayer dollars? An even better question is why would the government reward the failure of a CEO with a multi-million dollar golden parachute? In theory, if you fail, you get nothing. If I opened up a small business and failed, the government wouldn't help me. Why is it different for a CEO of a major corporation?
With an estimated cost of more than half a trillion dollars, Americans are left wondering what happens to them. How will the average American benefit from this buy out? They will be rewarded with a bill. And higher cost of living. And inflation. And...and...and...nothing. Now, if the government was a little more intelligent (please hold your laughter, I know it's wishful thinking), it could've used that money to repay all the poor Americans who are losing out. If that money was divided among every man, woman, and child in the country, we would all receive approximately $1600. That would be a nice gift to help pay mortgages, grocery bills, education costs, etc.
Who is the government really helping? Is this really a government for the people?
And no, I will not endorse either Barack Obama or John McCain. I doubt either will really fix the problem. In the words of Kang, "It doesn't matter which candidate you choose, either way your country is doomed, doomed, doomed!"
I am even more disgusted by my own government for bailing out these failed companies. I've read a few articles about this from liberal and conservative analysts, and they all think this is a bad idea. I concur. Why should the government reward a failure with billions of taxpayer dollars? An even better question is why would the government reward the failure of a CEO with a multi-million dollar golden parachute? In theory, if you fail, you get nothing. If I opened up a small business and failed, the government wouldn't help me. Why is it different for a CEO of a major corporation?
With an estimated cost of more than half a trillion dollars, Americans are left wondering what happens to them. How will the average American benefit from this buy out? They will be rewarded with a bill. And higher cost of living. And inflation. And...and...and...nothing. Now, if the government was a little more intelligent (please hold your laughter, I know it's wishful thinking), it could've used that money to repay all the poor Americans who are losing out. If that money was divided among every man, woman, and child in the country, we would all receive approximately $1600. That would be a nice gift to help pay mortgages, grocery bills, education costs, etc.
Who is the government really helping? Is this really a government for the people?
And no, I will not endorse either Barack Obama or John McCain. I doubt either will really fix the problem. In the words of Kang, "It doesn't matter which candidate you choose, either way your country is doomed, doomed, doomed!"
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Political Stupidity
And I'm not talking about the Democratic National Convention.
Why would a political party nominate an indicted politician to run for Senate? It seems the Alaskan Republican party is willing to do it. Ted Stevens has won the primary. This shows that the party and the voters are idiots. I don't care that he hasn't been convicted yet, because he almost certainly will. He is corrupt and should not serve his country any longer. If he had any decency, he'd resign.
How is it possible that the Republican party couldn't find a single conservative Alaskan to run in Ted Stevens' place? There must be dozens of eligible candidates. Fortunately, Stevens will probably lose the November general election. Of course, had the Republicans found another candidate that didn't disgust the general public, they might actually retain the Senate seat. But, again, this is politics, and politicians aren't known for intelligence or logical thinking.
I do wonder if democracy really is better than the Chinese political system. Is it better to choose between two brain-dead schmucks that will lead a powerful nation or having no choice but the same result? At least if I didn't have to choose I wouldn't endure a year of mind-numbing political ads and pointless opinion columns.
And for those wondering, I do plan to vote with my absentee ballot in November. I don't like McCain, but I also don't think Obama is as good as everyone makes him out to be. And Hillary wouldn't have been any better. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you get screwed in the end.
Why would a political party nominate an indicted politician to run for Senate? It seems the Alaskan Republican party is willing to do it. Ted Stevens has won the primary. This shows that the party and the voters are idiots. I don't care that he hasn't been convicted yet, because he almost certainly will. He is corrupt and should not serve his country any longer. If he had any decency, he'd resign.
How is it possible that the Republican party couldn't find a single conservative Alaskan to run in Ted Stevens' place? There must be dozens of eligible candidates. Fortunately, Stevens will probably lose the November general election. Of course, had the Republicans found another candidate that didn't disgust the general public, they might actually retain the Senate seat. But, again, this is politics, and politicians aren't known for intelligence or logical thinking.
I do wonder if democracy really is better than the Chinese political system. Is it better to choose between two brain-dead schmucks that will lead a powerful nation or having no choice but the same result? At least if I didn't have to choose I wouldn't endure a year of mind-numbing political ads and pointless opinion columns.
And for those wondering, I do plan to vote with my absentee ballot in November. I don't like McCain, but I also don't think Obama is as good as everyone makes him out to be. And Hillary wouldn't have been any better. It doesn't matter who you vote for, you get screwed in the end.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Obama's China Connection
Why are two British newspapers printing stories about Barack Obama's brothers while US media is ignoring them? Better yet, why does anyone care?
The Sun ran a story about one of the Democratic presidential hopeful's younger brothers who happens to live in England. The Times ran another one about an older brother.
The second story was of more interest to me because the Obama brother happens to live in the same district of Shenzhen as I do. There's very little information in the story other than a few details pertaining to his business. It is a rather long article consisting of almost nothing substantial.
What interested me more than anything was the way in which the reporter described Shenzhen. "[T]he most cosmopolitan city in China." Has this reporter ever been to Shenzhen or any other city in China? Did he forget about Shanghai? Cosmopolitan would imply that this city has culture. Go ahead and ask any Chinese person if Shenzhen has culture and they will all respond in the negative. Maybe The Times should consider hiring a writer who knows what goes on in this city.
The Sun ran a story about one of the Democratic presidential hopeful's younger brothers who happens to live in England. The Times ran another one about an older brother.
The second story was of more interest to me because the Obama brother happens to live in the same district of Shenzhen as I do. There's very little information in the story other than a few details pertaining to his business. It is a rather long article consisting of almost nothing substantial.
What interested me more than anything was the way in which the reporter described Shenzhen. "[T]he most cosmopolitan city in China." Has this reporter ever been to Shenzhen or any other city in China? Did he forget about Shanghai? Cosmopolitan would imply that this city has culture. Go ahead and ask any Chinese person if Shenzhen has culture and they will all respond in the negative. Maybe The Times should consider hiring a writer who knows what goes on in this city.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)