2008 Olympic Protests

Hooray for the 1st Amendment!!!

Even those that are not citizens of this country have learned the value of the freedom of speech. Even the China visa carriers, who are now following the torch as an expression of support for the communistic oppression their government imposes upon them don’t realize their presence along the parade route is an expression of freedom they don’t enjoy in their ‘homeland’ in the case where their opinion differs with that of the Chinese government.

If China has a problem with the rest of the world’s disapproval of their treatment to the workers in their factories, well then they ought to listen when the entire world shares in that disapproval.

China should listen as the world disagrees with their violence against the peaceful monks in Tibet.

China wants to be a player with the majors of the world. If they want to be known as a legitimate player, not some cheap imitator, they need to realize the world changed and are smarter than the bland, heavy handed ‘brainwashing’ propaganda being sent across the pond posing as intelligent explanation of human rights violations.

Currently, their propaganda deifies those who choose to voice disapproval of the treatment of the citizens of the country of Tibet (yes, I know, but it’s fun to antagonize). Gatherings, protests, etc. I’m not the biggest fan of trying to squash the torch, but if no-one gets hurt, it gets the attention of the world.
With that said, China tries to condemn the protests as out of place and inappropriate to the season of the Olympic Games and the Olympic ‘spirit’. Hypocrisy at best!

The 1st Amendment and the spirit of the 1st Amendment (in other countries) in this case is providing an open forum for the World to share in a single voice that China has some growing up to do. And if that voice happens to coincide with the Olympic Games, well, the timing couldn’t be better. But let’s make sure no one gets hurt.

History Lessons Percieved

The cliches are abundant… ‘History repeats itself’, ‘Learn from the lessons of history’, and on and on and on.

So these are not necessary lessons learned from history, but rather perceptions based upon historical events.

It’s always grandios to consider oneself posessing enough knowledge to write a book about history. Tom Brokaw has already written a couple and is about to produce yet another. Out of the limelight yet he still can’t get enough of hearing himself talk. Yes, that is filled with a bit of prejudic toward Tom, I’m not, I just like to point out oddities in the perception others have of themselves.

That said, I do want to share a quick quote taken from his book as a metaphorical decoder ring to societies social and behavioral change during the 60’s.

“[Society] got atomized in part [because] what they learned in the ’60s is how to organize … around reasonably, or in some cases, dramatically narrow interests, and make that narrow interest the leitmotif of their life”
– Tom Brokaw

I find plenty of truth to that.
Still today, possibly following the example of those of the 60’s, a small focus of individuals can become so entrenched in a single interest, that through emotion or happenstance, can gain momentum and steamroll through societies social fabric. There is both good and bad to this. The good, nevermind the good, it serves a worthwhiel purpose. The bad… that’s where society needs to check itself.

Obama already is contradicting himself

It had to happen sooner or later.
The 2008 election has been upon us since the close of the 2004 election. I had been able to let disregard all previous rhetoric previous to now as pure pontification. Only today was something observed which I thought should be called out as a bit hypocritical.

I don’t yet want to summarize where I feel on any particular candidate as I’m still trying to keep myself firmly planted in the middle without prejudice. While this submission will single out Barack Obama, it isn’t with the intent to discredit his candidacy, but rather to keep him honest in what he says.

In his speech, Obama, D-Illinois, said things would look different in an Obama administration: “When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.”
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets, and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
– CNN.com

Isn’t this what GWB initially set out to do? The intelligence the U.S. used (albeit inaccurate in hind-sight) was actionable and was baked up by data from multiple other countries, notably all those within the U.N. Security Council. For Obama to say that his tack greatly differs from that which GWB used, is misleading at best, hypocritical in truth and fear-provoking at worst. Obama has used his “innocence” as a Senator to discredit those who voted in support of the initial invasion of Iraq, but then uses the same justification which was used to justify that invasion for one of his own.

Obama will say. “He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq — which didn’t exist before our invasion — and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training recruits in Pakistan.”
–CNN.com

For Obama to assume that al Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq before the U.S. invaded seems a bit naive.

I’m pleased to see such a large panel of candidates on both sides. Although I don’t much care for the nicey-nice tactic which both sides seem to be enacting with this go ‘round. I’m sure it won’t last long the sooner we get to the primaries.

Good Luck to Obama as he finds a way to correct this. Yes; I’m assuming there will be a “clarification”. I think he makes a viable candidate that both sides will have to be mindful of in this election if not the next.

Who’s fault will it be when we learn Al Qaida was smarter than we thought.

It has been relatively peacefull over the last couple years. The war is thousands of miles away. The spooks seem to be catching bad guys before they can do bad things here at home.
The only violence seems to be in Europe lately. Is our attitude, better them than us?

What if the current silence ends up being the proverbail calm before the storm? What if domestic Al Qaida terror cells have not been flushed out as efficiently as possible and are just waiting for the right moment to start?

What if they’re even smarter than that? What if they see that their biggest road block happens to be the guy sitting in the White House right now. If that is their concern, then they should be happily waiting around for 2008. President Bush’s polls are the lowest ever, which could will most assuredly impact the subject matter during the election.

Bush’s hardline stance on terrorism doesn’t seem to be mirrored by many of those who care to replace his seat. In fact, most currently sound soft on the matter. They all want the troops home now. Well, who wouldn’t like that to happen? And now, one side of the Congress is demanding that the troops return home in 2008 — come hell or high water. So I added a bit at the end but the attitude shows.

The point is, if we were still being attacked here at home, then President Bush’s ratings would be sky high for his no tollerance stance on terrorism. Granted, depending on what he would do in the case of additional domestic attacks, his ratings might be different. But we would be chearing him for what most seem to be critical of now.

Could it be that Al Qaida is putting up such a fight in Iraq because they too know it is a critical front to being able to implement their war on everybody else.

Prove It — Part 2

Listening to the knee-jerk comments from all sides of the isle of last weeks elections, there are plenty more tidbits to call out.
I found it funny listening to comments from both winners and losers from the races.

“We ran a good race” — said:

– the challenger for the Republican Wisconsin congressional seat of Paul R. Nelson throughing morality accusations
– the new Democratic House Representative Chris Carney after running ads slamming the “family values” of Rep. Don Sherwood

What planet were these people on during the campaign? Didn’t those guys “approve” of those messages? This was a disgusting campaign year.

As soon as the election is won, everyone likes to pretend they took the high road from the beginning and will continue on that road by saying:

“We need to come together and unite” — said the DNC chairman (Dean) who also said “I hate Republicans and everything they stand for“

Prove It!

Adding to the mix is the free press. Free press is great and one of the greatest gifts any nation has to offer. Though it can be abused. If nobody else is going to call out the media for being The Media, it will have to happen here. Calling the media suckers for a good smear campaign to lead the next day with seems appropriate enough. But the following quote would be more “PC”.

“When the news is bad, the ads tend to be negative,” said Shanto Iyengar, a Stanford professor who studies political advertising. “And the more negative the ad, the more likely it is to get free media coverage. So there’s a big incentive to go to the extremes.”