Take a look -
Would you have the stones to do that? Of course, domestic "trouble makers" are either jailed, under house arrest (with varying degrees of access to media for interviews) or simply intimidated into silence. My personal "favorite" - one Tibetan lady who had spent time in the United States had been threatened with confiscation of her children if she did not buy plane tickets and go back to the United States. So, foreign protesters are finding a degree of success, which China finds utterly unacceptable. I applaud their bravery - China is not morally equivalent to the West under any circumstances so they should not be treated as such. In my view putting yourself in personal danger, as these protesters have, is another kind of war. There are no bullets - at least on the side of the good guys - but being a dissident in a country whose legacy includes murdering 70,000,000 of its own people constitutes a personal danger that everybody should respect.
President Bush is criticizing their government heavily -
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/766ae/766ae327ad45a9b2b59ef5ccd99d8f6fbabb5b72" alt=""
- as he should. Some say he isn't doing enough and that he should have considered staying home rather than attending the games. I'm afraid it isn't that simple. American presidents tend to criticize China at the beginning and the end of their term, but rarely in between. For him to have not attended would have been the right thing to do morally, but the wrong thing to do for the country. President Bush is right to levy his criticisms, which I would wager most Americans share.
Will that stop me from watching the Olympics? No. It is a sporting event, and frankly my interest is in supporting our own athletes. Politics should never mix with sports - the results can be seen all across Europe with one of my favorite sports, football (soccer). However, the entire premise of these Olympic Games is to cast China as a world power ready to take a grander stage. They are using the Games as a means to enhance their stature globally. For them it isn't just a sporting event, so I reject the cries from China to set the politics aside. The world is too wise to accept fallacious suggestions from China such as that.
I want our athletes to go in, have a healthy place to compete (which seems dubious at best), collect more medals than everybody else and get the hell out of there. I want to see Phelps dominate. I want to see our footy teams do better than most would think, although yesterday's loss to Norway hurt. I want to hear our national anthem and see our flag raised in the capital of a Communist country with an oppressive political system, with medals slung around the necks of people standing on pedestals who know what freedom is all about.
One such athlete who knows exactly what I'm talking about is Lopez Lamong. Mr. Lamong is a former Sudanese refugee and Darfur activist who spent 10 years in a Kenyan refugee camp. He became an American citizen in July 2007 and is representing our country in the 1500m. The American team captains got together in the Olympic Village and voted him to be the flag bearer during the opening ceremony. You can read about it here -
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/766ae/766ae327ad45a9b2b59ef5ccd99d8f6fbabb5b72" alt=""
- it was a decision that made me so proud that I got emotional when I heard it.
In his words:
"The American flag means everything in my life -- everything that describes me, coming from another country and going through all of the stages that I have to become a US citizen."
That is something worthwhile to see, Friday night, Channel 2, 7:30pm.
EDIT: More, via Drudge. If you have 10 minutes check these out.
and "the crying lot..." is supposed to be Pynchon's most accessible work. i cannot imagine what is other stuff is like.
i dunno...i tried reading "the road", but i just could not get into it. often times i dislike a book when the author is too descriptive and too poetic. i feel as if they are trying to show off what they can do with words instead of trying to tell a story.
prime example is the "the crying lot of 49" by Pynchon. his writing style, literally, made me angry. it's like listening to someone talk just to hear themselves talk. i just felt he tried to make the prose unnecessarily difficult just because it would make him seem much more interesting and complex. everything was convoluted and riddled with metaphor upon metaphor. i think that authors who cannot put together an interesting tale try to compensate by writing shit that nobody can understand thus making it seem so intelligent that only the super smart are capable of understanding it. maybe the extra intelligent folk do enjoy this much more than me and maybe that is the audience that book was written for. maybe i'm just not smart enough to see the book for what it is.
and it is because of that book that i didn't attempt to go beyond the first 10 pages of "the road". i was afraid that i would hate the book and the author if i kept reading. maybe i'm wrong. maybe someone here can tell me that it's not as i perceive it to be. i'm willing to listen to others' opinion if they feel differently.