07 April 2008

Hillary Calls For Olympic Boycott

I never thought I would see this day come.  I agree with Hillary Clinton and disagree with President Bush.  This alone was cause to reconsider my thinking, but I can't get around it... I think Hillary is right on this one.

Clinton, in a statement, cited violent clashes in Tibet and the lack of pressure by China on Sudan to stop "the genocide in Darfur."

"At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government," the New York senator said.

I'm seriously disturbed by this.  Fortunately, she'll "qualify" her statements very soon I'm sure, if only to reassure my faith in her dishonesty.  Next, Barack Obama will argue the exact opposite, then "qualify" his statements to say we should have a boycott.  That way, they can both point to the statement that benefits them most and "tut-tut" any attempt to point out any conflicting statements they've made before or since.  'Cause that's how they roll.

John McCain will promise to hold a "virtual" Olympics... but only if the athletes are all given medals, whether they actually compete or not.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 14:11:41 | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 204 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Remember, the "Free Tibet" is important to the lefties, because of the Dalai Lama, I suppose.  So Hillary is looking to score points with them.

(I shouldn't joke about the Dalai Lama.  He's actually on the faculty of my alma mater;  taught there for a week last fall.)

I spent an hour or so this afternoon trying to come up with a version of the Beijing Olympic logo that's more accurate than the official version.  Either convert the Olympic rings into ball and chain, or drape chains over the humanoid figure in the upper half.  Unfortunately, my artistic and photoshopping abilities are woeful of the woefulest,  so nothing usable was achieved.

Posted by: kishnevi at 07 April 2008@19:12:47 (DqtzB)

2 What does boycotting the Olympics accomplish, really, though. We need to address the trade deficit to China if we want to correct our standing --- that seems more important, to me anyway. Because China can call our loans, which are so huge they defy the common calculator (how many zeroes in a trillion?), we probably shouldn't give them reason by way of insulting them. Eye on the prize. Become self-sufficient. That's the way to hit where it hurts. My 3 cents.

Posted by: Starry Fruit at 09 April 2008@16:07:09 (/vVjk)

3 What does showing up accomplish besides give them increased credibility?  The Games have become a joke, nearly the opposite of what they were intended to represent.

What loans do we have to China?  If you're talking about a trade deficit, that's something completely different.  Besides, appeasement never works with totalitarians, they (by definition) want total control.  Even if they could damage our economy, what good does that do them?  The economy in the rest of the world is heavily dependent on the United States economy.  Jihadists would like to destroy it because it would also hurt the world economy, furthering their cause which only prospers in ignorance and poverty.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 09 April 2008@16:16:11 (tarqT)

4

I wish I understood more about Chinese culture. Then I'd understand how they'd interpret being shunned versus validated, or if they even care. Will being boycotted shame them into changing their foreign policy? I kind of doubt it, seeing as though I agree that the Games have become something of a laughing matter (although I'm not sure the athletes share that sentiment). 

In any event, don't be misled. I hold no regard for totalitarian governments, and I certainly don't want to enable or validate them (or Jihadists). However:

What I heard (on Lou Dobbs Tonight, a couple or three years ago) is that China has been building, building, building its military, including nuclear submarines, at a pretty good clip. They've got the surplus to do it, certainly. So economy coupled with intent certainly does affect foreign policy, perceived power, and on.

Am I wrong in my perception that we're suffering a near-unmanageable deficit right now? Not a sarcastic comment --- I've only heard it from the media and politicians. Although foreclosures are riding high in these parts. Hm.

60 Minutes had a story, an eye-opener for many people, about this issue last week. I missed the program, but the whole town seems to be talking about it. I wish I hadn't missed it.

Posted by: Starry Fruit at 09 April 2008@17:47:56 (/vVjk)

5 China has been building up their military and their economy is doing very well right now because they've incorporated some capitalism into it. I did an earlier post about boycotting the Chinese Olympic Opening Ceremonies with a link to their economy here.

We don't owe them money and trying hurt our economy would hurt theirs more overall. There's really not a lot they could do to hurt us though. I've done several posts on the economy, just put "recession" into the Search Thingy at the top or bottom of the sidebar for those.

How they perceive it is less important than how it's perceived by us. Boycotting the Opening Ceremonies or the entire Olympics would show the American people that we're serious about human rights, not hypocritically supporting one abuser while claiming to fight a war on others.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 09 April 2008@18:57:06 (tarqT)

6 The deficit is below the record in terms of percent of the GNP. The dollars are higher. That does not mean it is not too high but the scare talk by the democratic politicians is risible. They just want an excuse to raise taxes. They have shown they would just spend the money, not reduce the deficit. The increased taxes would slow the economy and reduce tax income prompting them to call for yet more taxes. When the Republicans tried to push for a balanced budget in the 90s, Bill Clinton actually said a balanced budget was bad for the country. The Democrats have never been able to resist increasing spending when they got there hands on more money.

China has long had a huge but primitive military. Clinton greatly increased the threat by selling them a ten to fifteen year leap ahead in weapons technology  in return for campaign contributions to help win the 96 election. This saved them many billions of dollars in R&D and put 100,000,000 Americans under nuclear threat. He provided them knowledge we did not give our allies. I do not mind imports but I try to avoid buying Chinese.

Posted by: Machinist at 09 April 2008@19:00:46 (yFIK0)

7 A credit card balance that is ruinous at $30,000. a year can be minor at $300,000. a year. Just looking at the dollars is deceptive. Our economy is growing. This may be the first time in history an economy was considered a recession while it was growing every quarter. Must be global warming overheating the debate. 

Posted by: Machinist at 09 April 2008@19:08:06 (yFIK0)

8 When we let politicians and the MSM "frame" things, they always turn out to be lies.  The economy and global warming are just two examples.  Too bad they won't just tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may.  We'd be better off in the long run, but they can't see past their next campaign or deadline.

Posted by: Stashiu3 at 09 April 2008@19:37:04 (tarqT)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

Number of Unique Visits Since 08 March 2008



27kb generated in CPU 0.0144, elapsed 0.049 seconds.
59 queries taking 0.0391 seconds, 108 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.