|
|
JISHOU, HUNAN — The common American assumption about China’s government is that it’s repressive, hellbent to maintain its power despite all internal or external pressures to change. But, from the perspective of someone inside China, the general population does not seem to fear the government, despite its ability to detain or “disappear” troublemakers.
Among my students, associates and friends, there is a quiet willingness to criticize the government, remark on the corruption of party officials, and play along with seemingly illogical demands from higher ups while basically doing nothing about them — the Chinese version of the colonial Spanish motto,”Obedezco pero no cumplo,” — I obey, but I do not comply (with royal edicts).
To be frank, I was not entirely sure my conclusions were correct until I read a lengthy essay in The Diplomat tonight by Gordon Chang, a writer for Forbes. Turns out I’m a better political and social analyst than I thought.
[Reading the comments after the essay, though, it seems not everyone agrees with me or Chang.]
Chang’s argument is cogent. Prosperity and electronic media have emboldened the Chinese populace as never before, as it plunges headlong into the 21st century. Meanwhile, the powerful elite men (and it is mostly men) who run the central government are slowly losing their iron grip on the country, and have no idea how to regain it. President Hu Jintao recently blamed Western influences on the “non-harmoniousness” of China, but he was relying on a familiar Chinese scapegoat: blame the outsiders for problems that are internal.
This is a preview of The future of China: stuffy old men vs. energized citizens . Read the full post (1012 words, 1 image, estimated 4:03 mins reading time)Possibly related posts:
JISHOU, HUNAN — Oklahoma’s anti-Sharia law violates the US Constitution, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The ruling states that the law — which amended the state constitution — violated the Establishment clause of the First Amendment by singling out one religion, Islam. In addition, the court noted that the proponents of the law, which passed November 2010 in a state referendum, could not identify one occasion in which Sharia was used in Oklahoma.
Too bad courts can’t comment on the stupidity of laws, too.
Oklahoma’s Islamophobic factions took the lead nationally in pressing for such a law, creating a nontroversy about “creeping Sharia” and Muslim infiltration of the USA. After the Sooner State’s successful ballot initiative, other states jumped on the bandwagon, fabricating Muslim threats from whole cloth.
The 10th Circuit got to the heart of the matter in its ruling: “Sharia? What Sharia?”
Appellants do not identify any actual problem the challenged amendment seeks to solve. Indeed, they admitted at the preliminary injunction hearing that they did not know of even a single instance where an Oklahoma court had applied Sharia law or used the legal precepts of other nations or cultures, let alone that such applications or uses had resulted in concrete problems in Oklahoma. See Awad, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 1308; Aplt. App. Vol. 1 at 67-68.
This is a preview of 10th Circuit slaps Oklahoma anti-Sharia law down like bug on a wall . Read the full post (326 words, 1 image, estimated 1:18 mins reading time)Possibly related posts:
[Cross-posted at the Daily Kos]
JISHOU, HUNAN –Chinese observers seem to draw two opposing conclusions from the Occupy Wall Street movement in the USA. The more common (state-approved) conclusion is: capitalism is bad, Marxism is good. The more thoughtful conclusion is: if the Chinese government doesn’t deal with widespread corruption, China might see similar protests in the not-too-distant future.
Recently, one of my friends asked me what Chinese reactions to OWS were. So, I’ve spent some time poring over Internet reports and blogs to get a sense how OWS is playing over here. Since my grasp of Mandarin is weak still, and my access to movers and shakers is limited, take my comments here with a grain of salt.
Official Chinese news coverage tends to characterize OWS as a confrontation between the very poor and homeless (the victims of heartless capitalism) and the rich and powerful (heartless capitalist dogs). The Communist Party is using OWS as an object lesson in the superiority of China’s Marxism.
Comments to an article about the clearing out of Zucotti Park in New York City are representative of netizen reactions. Several comments are rabidly anti-American and pro-Chinese, leading other commenters to accuse those writers of being paid pro-government trolls. (The Party reportedly pays people 5 mao, or 0.50 yuan, to post pro-government comments on the Internet.)
The more staid party publication, Global Times, predicts OWS will amount to nothing in the end and China should just wait and see what happens.
Possibly related posts:
So, what’s wrong with this photo? It came from a campaign mailer from Patricia Phillips, who is a Loudon County, Virginia, Republican running for a state senate seat.
 OK, but thanking a US veteran might be more appropriate. The keen-eyed and quick-witted will note that this distinguished old officer is — or more accurately, was — not a member of the US Armed Forces. He’s a Soviet naval officer. You know, our enemies back in the day.
I propose that Phillips’ campaign staff is neither keen-eyed nor quick-witted. And her opponent must be laughing his ass off.
Permanent link to this post (98 words, 2 images, estimated 24 secs reading time) Possibly related posts:
UPDATE OCT. 7, 2011 — A few things have changed since I wrote this post. Texas Gov. Rick Perry is no longer listed as a speaker. Three new speakers are now listed: Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, President of NHCLC, Lila Rose, President of Live Action and John Stemberger, President of Florida Family Policy Council. And the deadline to get the low, low price on the viewing party kits has been extended to Oct. 14.
JISHOU, HUNAN — By way of Right Wing Watch, I came across this announcement, which encourages folks to host viewing “parties” for a televised “premiere event.”
 Now on sale! Just $9.95 if you act before Sept. 30! The lineup of speakers* includes two guys running for the Republican presidential nomination (only one of whom has a ghost of chance of winning the nomination), a former congressman, a man who lies about American history, and the former head of an influential conservative Christian media empire.
[*Speakers have been invited, but are not yet confirmed. -- Footnote at the bottom of the webpage.]]
Three hours of talking heads telling us that the USA is a Christian Nation™, that the USA is going down the tubes because of the liberals, the gays, the atheists, the Muslims and (by the way) President Barack Obama, and that viewers need to bring God back into America where He belongs, instead of taking care of the whole universe like He’s supposed to.
Gripping TV at its best.
Possibly related posts:
JISHOU, HUNAN — Just days after Matthew Vadum of American Thinker proposed the dubious analogy that letting the poor vote was like giving crooks burglary tools, another brilliant mind pops up with similar cutting edge 18th century political ideas.
This time the mind in question belongs to John David Dyche, a Republican lawyer in Louisville, Kentucky. He wrote an opinion piece for the Courier-Journal entitled “Property rights crucial to voting rights.”
He begins with another dubious analogy — doctors this time, not second-story men.
Some bemoan Kentucky’s 10 percent voter turnout in recent primaries. But quantity hardly assures quality in making important choices.
If you had a serious disease would you open your treatment to everyone or confine it to a few specialists? A free society’s biggest decision is how it shall be governed. The Founders therefore placed prudent limits on participation in it.
After offhandedly suggesting that it was probably a good idea to let blacks and women vote, Dyche then takes us to the good old days when only the landed gentry could participate in politics or governance. You know, the situation that encouraged some demented landed gentry types to create an entirely new nation sometime around 1776.
Unlike Vadum, who draws his arguments from paranoia-scented thin air, Dyche dresses up his anti-democratic broadside with lots of quotes from historical figures — none of whom lived after the 1850s — with whom he happily agrees. Must be that law school training.
This is a preview of Another conservative jumps on “only property-owners should vote” bandwagon . Read the full post (1967 words, 1 image, estimated 7:52 mins reading time)Possibly related posts:
[UPDATE: Well, nevermind. The putz won the election with 53% of the vote. Hope you like what you got, Brooklyn and Queens.]
This is an actual campaign flier sent out by the New York Republicans on behalf of NY-9 candidate Bob Turner. I can’t think of a more crass exploitation of the 10th anniversary of the Twin Towers attack than this.
 Vote for me, the bigot! Turner is running against Democrat David Weprin in a special election to fill the seat of Rep. Andrew Weiner (D-NY-9), who resigned his seat after a sexting scandal. It’s supposed to be a tight race.
I hope this flier backfires on Turner big time. Aside from the obvious bigotry, it lies like a dog. The Park 51 project is not at the site of World Trade Center (the so-called Ground Zero), is not a mosque, and doesn’t look anything like the gold-domed edifice in the flier. The project additionally does not violate any laws, local or national, and has even been approved by the local community zoning board.
Turner is a putz. Look it up at urbandictionary.com if you don’t know what it means.
Permanent link to this post (191 words, 2 images, estimated 46 secs reading time) Possibly related posts:
|
Recent Comments