Spielberg snubs Chinese Olympics

Indirectly, yes. Citizen's online activity being monitored and such like, absolutely. Censorship need not be overt.

See above.

In a sentence. While occurring on different continents, they were both Illegal occupations based on strategic interests and for domestic political appeasement.

The US didn't had one when it went in, it doesn't yet have a coherent one five years later. What's your point?

Not to my knowledge.

Well, I see them being killed almost every day merely for being American. Is that close enough?

I've seen seen far worse in Iraq.

Many of your arguments are not even on point. You're going to have to do better than this.

precisely my reaction to ....

The offenses of the government of the PRC against civil rights are greater than those of the US government, that does not mean that those of the US government should be allowed to pass.

The PRC should get out of Tibet and the US should get out of Iraq.

I would not go to the straight Olympics in any case, they are still extremely homophobic, and a bit fascist.

You said there was no comparison to China's illegal military actions and their tacit support in a number of arenas and those of the US in Iraq (and by inference, Afghanistan). I believe there is.

Consider China and Tibet with America and Iraq - The question of Americans being surrounded is a basis for comparison issue how? - neither was a domestic action.

What has having a 'loud mouth' got to do with either?

What has censorship got to do with either?

What has organ harvesting got to do with either.

Do you see a theme developing here?

Anyway, as I said I support Spielberg and others but as I also said I doubt it will cut much, if any ice with the Chinese.

This is in pretty much the same way international condemnation of human rights abuses by the US at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib failed to force the US to do more than a little PR, a potential show trial.

no ... listing of different issues, different aspects/instances of Chinese repression all pointing to no honoring/recognition of rights of living beings... organ harvesting from political prisoners, executions for political expression cannot be matched by anyone, unless you reach back into fascist Germany & japan.... the example of Chinese tanks surrounding Chinese, you responded to by reference to Iraq (!?!?) when have you ever seen Washington ordering the subjugation of Americans gathered in protest by tanks and heavy equipment? Iraq will eventually be Iraq again, can anyone say the same thing about Tibet?

I could go on and on ... there is no dearth of outrages committed by Beijing, and given China's increasing military might, the future looks even bleaker

I said there was a comparison, not that they were analogous.

The reference to Iraq was by another poster to whom you replied No comparison, to which asked How so? That's how Iraq entered the fray. I (mistakenly) assumed that's what you were drawing comparisons with. My mistake.

Both the US and China have undertaken illegal military interventions, invading the sovereign territory of another nation on dubious or outright illegal grounds. The US is steadily eroding the rights of it's citizens domestically and those of foreign nationals abroad, and domestically. I thought that was common knowledge?

The organ harvesting etc was your addition and I agreed that it wasn't occurring in the US today to my knowledge. But some questionable experiments on US citizens have been undertaken in the past, some allegedly in the very recent past.

Different MO with the same objective, the steady subjugation of individual rights and freedoms by an increasingly autocratic sequence of administrations. That you can't see that is a surprise. You may want to look a little deeper into the machinations of your own Government before dismissing the comparisons so readily.

All athletes who win medals next year should give a salute, perhaps two hands clenched - like the Goddess of Liberty in Tianemen in '89 - to show solidarity with the spirit of freedom and the Chinese people, also to acknowledge they do not intend to be used by the illegal Chinese government for PR purposes. I wonder how you would get something like that off the ground?

I agree there is a diminution of individual rights and freedoms

I disagree about the mechanics behind it by the USA and the PRC

In the case of the USA, the driving force is the forces that began in Europe centuries ago with the rise of commercialization, and that has led to trade with China, enriching that regime, enabling its acquisition of force. (I am reminded of Chairman Mao saying that capitalism has within it the seeds of its own destruction).

That force that China has used, and will continue to use, and the fact that it will not be constrained by any recognition of rights, not even to give lip service to such rights is especially problematic.

I'm afraid that once that force is implemented, entire possibilities are destroyed, as we are seeing in Tibet.

Again, that is not something you will in Iraq.

Given the difference in the mechanics involved, and the degrees of severity, there is no comparison, is how I would attempt to describe my thinking in the few words I am constrained to use in this forum.

My opinion is that China just wants to be left alone, historically it has been a very insular country and remains so with only some forays into economic treaties with foreign countries. It's too busy governing its billions of citizens to engage in a policy of national expansion. You may scoff at that, but we have to realize that China is not a homogenous society; it's a huge country made up of a patchwork quilt of regional groups and minorities and risks falling apart like the former USSR if not controlled by a strong hand. In no way am I defending the communist government and its actions, it is corrupt like any other; however, it would behoove us not to judge other nations with an ethnocentric American standard that is not applicable nor transferable due to historical, social, and political differences. Doing so is not only condescending and paternalistic, but smacks of colonial superiority -- one step away from invasion to civilize the heathens.

I find it laughable that the USA has the gall to point the accusatory finger of human rights abuses at anyone considering it hasn't even ratified the 1966 UN International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (also known as the international bill of rights), putting it on par with Myanmar, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba. When the US does sign anything it weakens a treaty to the point of worthlessness as exemplified by the 1992 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The same can be said of the 1984 UN Convention Against Torture: the US ratified it with the caveat, "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States," basically giving it carte blanche to using simulated drowning, sleep deprivation, etc. The list goes on and on, but the most worrisome is that we as a nation need to clean up our own house before bitching at others. Just do a search on Human Rights Watch - Defending Human Rights Worldwide (human rights watch) and abuses such as the death penalty, Guantanamo Bay, Hurricane Katrina, racial profiling & police brutality, HIV/AIDS policy (abstinence anyone?), and more pop up for your enjoyment. If something as simple as elections in this urdemocracy neccesitate monitoring don't you think something is wrong?

Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote
By Jimmy Carter
Monday, September 27, 2004; Page A19
After the debacle in Florida four years ago, former president Gerald Ford and I were asked to lead a blue-ribbon commission to recommend changes in the American electoral process. After months of concerted effort by a dedicated and bipartisan group of experts, we presented unanimous recommendations to the president and Congress. The government responded with the Help America Vote Act of October 2002. Unfortunately, however, many of the act's key provisions have not been implemented because of inadequate funding or political disputes.
The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely, even as many other nations are conducting elections that are internationally certified to be transparent, honest and fair.

The Carter Center has monitored more than 50 elections, all of them held under contentious, troubled or dangerous conditions. When I describe these activities, either in the United States or in foreign forums, the almost inevitable questions are: "Why don't you observe the election in Florida?" and "How do you explain the serious problems with elections there?"

The answer to the first question is that we can monitor only about five elections each year, and meeting crucial needs in other nations is our top priority. (Our most recent ones were in Venezuela and Indonesia, and the next will be in Mozambique.) A partial answer to the other question is that some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida.

The most significant of these requirements are:
• A nonpartisan electoral commission or a trusted and nonpartisan official who will be responsible for organizing and conducting the electoral process before, during and after the actual voting takes place. Although rarely perfect in their objectivity, such top administrators are at least subject to public scrutiny and responsible for the integrity of their decisions. Florida voting officials have proved to be highly partisan, brazenly violating a basic need for an unbiased and universally trusted authority to manage all elements of the electoral process.
• Uniformity in voting procedures, so that all citizens, regardless of their social or financial status, have equal assurance that their votes are cast in the same way and will be tabulated with equal accuracy. Modern technology is already in use that makes electronic voting possible, with accurate and almost immediate tabulation and with paper ballot printouts so all voters can have confidence in the integrity of the process. There is no reason these proven techniques, used overseas and in some U.S. states, could not be used in Florida.
It was obvious that in 2000 these basic standards were not met in Florida, and there are disturbing signs that once again, as we prepare for a presidential election, some of the state's leading officials hold strong political biases that prevent necessary reforms.
Four years ago, the top election official, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was also the co-chair of the Bush-Cheney state campaign committee. The same strong bias has become evident in her successor, Glenda Hood, who was a highly partisan elector for George W. Bush in 2000. Several thousand ballots of African Americans were thrown out on technicalities in 2000, and a fumbling attempt has been made recently to disqualify 22,000 African Americans (likely Democrats), but only 61 Hispanics (likely Republicans), as alleged felons.
The top election official has also played a leading role in qualifying Ralph Nader as a candidate, knowing that two-thirds of his votes in the previous election came at the expense of Al Gore. She ordered Nader's name be included on absentee ballots even before the state Supreme Court ruled on the controversial issue.
Florida's governor, Jeb Bush, naturally a strong supporter of his brother, has taken no steps to correct these departures from principles of fair and equal treatment or to prevent them in the future.
It is unconscionable to perpetuate fraudulent or biased electoral practices in any nation. It is especially objectionable among us Americans, who have prided ourselves on setting a global example for pure democracy. With reforms unlikely at this late stage of the election, perhaps the only recourse will be to focus maximum public scrutiny on the suspicious process in Florida.
Former president Carter is chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta.

Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote (washingtonpost.com)

Depends on your point of view.

Discuss stands by any number of American Indians.
Discuss Kent State. (albeit state government ordered action not Washington's)
Discuss Waco.

Freedom and dissent mean different things to different people. There's no argument from me that there is light years more of liberty in the USA than in The People's Republic of China. But mistakes and bad decisions DO happen in America when the government steps in, as it happens in many, many other countries.

In my opinion, Iraq is going to be host to a permanent US military presence in the form of a massive operations base. It's a strategic position to protect America's vital interests: Ensuring control of access and free traffic of OIL though the Persian Gulf. Hypothetically, a Democrat in the White House will remove enough troops to honour their promise, but they won't dismantle the occupation to zero any time soon, if ever. Republicans, if given the chance, will carry on Bush's project as planned.

I disagree, Iraq will never be Iraq again. Baghdad was a thriving cosmopolitan city and respected center of learning in a secular state before the US invasion. Even if the US ever pulls out what will be left is a puppet government, Islamic state, or worse, general anarchy like in Afghanistan. The Taliban in Afghanistan are a direct result and product of American Interventionist Policy; they wouldn't have existed without or meddling.


Mao was directly quoting Marx from the Communist Manifesto. One of the tenets of Social Progression in the Manifesto states that all social orders have the seeds of their own destruction implanted in them. If a system is based on inequality, the oppressed and exploited will eventually rise up and revolution will herald in a new social order; this vicious cycle will only stop when there is an end to exploitation and inequality. Hence the striving for a class-less society. Of course, perfectly good theory is always corrupted by human avarice and ego and communism as we know it will probably not last.

Granted, Iraq and Tibet are not perfect comparisons since China's policy in Tibet is more closely aligned to America's concept of Manifest Destiny and what was done to the Native Americans and Mexico. However, in discussing mechanics and severity, Iraq shares with Tibet the invasion of one sovereign country by another, the destruction of social, cultural, and political institutions, and the economic hegemony of natural resources. The discussion of severity is purely subjective and conjecture since neither Iraq nor Tibet are closed cases and continue to be occupied lands. However, another shared trait of both examples is the choke hold on media outlets and release of objective reporting of events and images while replaced by widespread propaganda issued by the occupying powers. The White House has learned from Vietnam that any images of dead or mutilated American soldiers on television will end wars more quickly than inept generals.

[quote=musclebutt2;1290945]My opinion is that China just wants to be left alone, historically it has been a very insular country and remains so with only some forays into economic treaties with foreign countries. &c. quote]


It's not the government I worry about. I'm worried about the billions of people living in slavery.

[quote=Satsfakshun;1291248]So are Americans. Corporate welfare and lobbyists are keeping most Americans chained to their workdesk working longer hours per week for less pay and benefits. Children have no parents because both are always at work. Americans are so in debt that nothing they own is theirs anymore, houses are being foreclosed at record levels... no life, no kids, no home, isn't that similar to slavery too? But enough rethoric, how do you define billions of Chinese living in slavery?

Why did he get involved in the first place? Good on Mia Farrow for waking him up!

You're right,we're ALL being watched.

However hard you try to eliminate traces of where you have been, all internet servers in the UK and many other countries have a legal responsibility to keep a record of everyone who has visited the websites stored on them.
Plus, Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in the UK also record where you surf to and from, and are required to keep the information in case authorities ask for it.
If a court or the police ask for these details in connection with a criminal or civil case your ISP or the website host may have to release them.

BBC - Webwise - Ask Bruce - How can I hide where I have been online?