My Rare Agreement with Obama
Ultimately, the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games are a time when the world flocks together and enjoys as each of their representative athletes presents itself, and showcases the best from states the globe over in a friendly competition. However, it can safely be argued that a certain behavioral standard needs to be upheld by those hosting the Olympic Games if they wish to carry with it all the honors, privileges, and recognitions. In this case, China had their chance to demonstrate that the Communist party has stepped away from the time of the past, from a regime marred not by the corruption that we in the West so frequently associated with evil, but rather the simple cold, calculated tyranny and willingness to sacrifice the individual for the continuation of a political thought that pops up wherever communist regimes appear.
Tibet does not have an entirely unreasonable request of China, namely that they stop running their people over with bulldozers every time they bring up the issue of their independence from annexation, but unfortunately that simple request has fallen on largely deaf ears. But the purpose of boycotting these Olympic Games, as hard as it is for me to admit this due to my usual reluctance to endorse such a petty slight, goes far beyond the simple distaste for a particular action. Instead, the Tibetan crackdown is essentially a simple metaphor for the nation itself.
In many ways, with the world watching, the People's Republic of China was given the chance to demonstrate that all that we'd heard and presupposed about the emerging power was actually in err, an exaggeration of the worst kind. However, it becomes all too patently clear that there was no mistake made, the beliefs in China's simple, unrelenting brutality against its people is a fact of life that is inseparable from their very form of government.
To that end, as they are asked to host a time of global community and peace, they should be asked to be put on their best behavior, and to show us what they're really all about. What we've seen is an unfathomable clamp down on freedoms as China literally bulldozes houses surrounding the Olympic games, the banning of the mentally ill from the audiences, and the ultimate break down in human rights just so that they can get a chance to show the world, amusingly enough, that they aren't all that bad.
To bolster this claim, they've demonstrated that they're equally worthy of praise, because to show that the Olympic Games aren't going to be hindered, they will run over Tibetan monks, in essence showing that they are little more than the Myanmar Junta's older, more sophisticated brother. Therefore, as presidential hopeful Barack Hussein Obama throws his support behind the idea of taking China to task for this outrage, I have to nod to him - it's the right thing to do.
The United States has no business endorsing this kind of regime, and hopefully, it will be one of the first necessary steps to demonstrating to Communist China that their less than spotless record is under international scrutiny.
Published by Chadd De Las Casas
I was born in Valencia, California in 1987. It's ironic that I turned out to be a writer, since my first exposure to it was an essay about why I hate writing. I am also the owner of the Content Producers Wiki. View profile
Barack Obama: Fired Up and Ready to GoBarack Obama, introduced by former Four Star General "Tony" McPeak, rallies potential Iowa caucus-goers on December 28 in Davenport, Iowa.- Barack Obama Addresses Newton, Iowa, Crowd on December 30Barack Obama (D, IL)spoke to a crowd of would-be caucus-goers in Newton, Iowa at the Newton Senior High School on December 30th, and obliquely rebutted some of the charges being aimed at him by other front-runners in...
The Reasonable Barack ObamaThis is an editorial piece about why I think Barack Obama is so popular as a presidential candidate. - Beijing Olympic Games 2008 ReviewThe Playstation 3's market for games isn't exactly a huge one at this moment in time, so the other day, I went out and decided to purchase Beijing Olympic Games 2008, and to be honest, it wasn't worth me leaving my ho...
- The Presidential Election 2008 - an Already Burned Out TopicThe Presidential Election 2008 will take place on November 4, 2008. That is still more than a year away, yet a lot of people are already tired of hearing about it. Aren't you?
- The 2008 Summer Olympic Games in China
- What Would You Bring Home from the Olympic Games?
- Michael Phelps, Mark Spitz: Olympic Games, Swimsuit Controversies and Fatigue Fact...
- Have the Olympic Games Been Hijacked by the Politicians and Profiteers?
- Snapshot of U.S. Athletes and the 2008 Summer Olympic Games
- Turning Olympic Games Green: Eco-friendly
- Game Review: Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games For Nintendo Wii
28 Comments
Post a CommentI have to express my consternation at the fact that even when Paul and I agree on a topic, it appears to be an event deserving of debate?
The specific senators and congressmembers are only examples, but their records are very similar to teh rest of Republicans in teh House and Senate. If you look at the scorecard year by year, there is a consistency that proves my larger point, and the DAV is not regarded as a partisan organization, and the scorecard is based upon legislation the DAV supports as advocates for veterans--so pork and such is taken into account by them when deciding whether to support any legislation.
Given, for example, Hillary's high score, I'm left to wonder if her "legislations" she's being voted high on amount to her attempt to ban soft drinks from schools, and therefore she seems the "more compassionate".
Based on your examples alone I'm already seeing problems. Bills on the environment have no place sharing a bill with vet care - and if half of these proposals in any way included anything but troop care, it amounts to the same kind of idiotic pork barrel spending that mars every proposed bill by Democrats. How many of them included pay raises too I wonder most sarcastically. To that end - in what way are they graded? By merit of simply voting "no" on bills? I tell you, I have zero faith in our public school system and would almost favor its absolute dissolution, as it's likely to cause less damage to kids that way, therefore, I have a hard time believing that any vote against the Federal government's involvement any further in these schools is a good thing - but then, your individual appraisal of certain Senators is neither here nor there, and I don't 100% understand their application to this discussion.
One correction--the DAV scorecard scores voting records on "important legislation". I only mention this because I said that McHenry and Boehner voted negative on "all" legislation before them. This doesn't really undermine my point because the same standard applies to Dems.
One last thing I swear--As for presidential candidates--John McCain scores an average 36% pro-vet record over the last 4 years of votes, while Hillary scores an average 93% and Obama scores an average 86% pro-vet record.
continued from below: Filner amendment that sought to provide funding for the Veterans' Health Administration. Republican minority leader Boehner also voted against all the same amendments I just listed, and like I said, every other veterans spending bill and amendments the previous 4 years. As a point of reference, awful, leftist American troop hater Dennis Kucinich had a 100% pro-vet voting record over the same time period, except for one year in which he scored an 80%.
These are the specific bills from 2005, when Mchenry voted against all 5 vet appropriation budget bills and amendments before him: Melancon amendment that sought to add $53 million for veterans health care and process claims for compensation and pensions. It would be offset by $169 million cut to the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act (by a recorded vote of 213 ayes to 214 noes, Roll No. 224); Obey amendment, No. 1 printed in H. Rept. 109-19, that increases $15.8 billion in FY06 new BA and outlays for veterans, education, health care needs, homeland security, the environment and infrastructure; and reduces the FY06 tax benefit for those earning more than $1 million; (by a recorded vote of 180 ayes to 242 noes, Roll No. 82);
But, lets talk about political motivation and underhanded politics. There are a million examples of the type of Republcicans I am talking about--but just as an example check out Rep. Patrick McHenry's track record on the DAV scorecard. This clown loves war, always talks about how much he loves the troops and insinuates how anti-troop Dems are, yet in 2005 this guys scored a zero, voting against all five pieces of pro-vet legislation he had a chance to vote on. He miraculously started voting the right way when he was up for reelection in 2006. Then there is house minority leader John Boehner--another big mouth chickenhawk. He voted against every pro-vet bill between 2002 and 2005, but all of a sudden started voting more positively when he was up for reelection in 2006, and more disabled troops were returning home to his state of Ohio from teh Iraq war he so supports. Those are just 2 examples of very many.
BTW Chadd, I'm not saying that ALL Republicans totally neglect vets and troops. I'm really just trying to point out that the Democratic party generally shows a significantly higher degree of support, yet somehow get stamped with this anti-troop stigma, while the people who perpetuate the myth happen to be outspoken Republican chickenhawks who are on record showing very little support for troops, but very much support for the corporations that build the bombs. This is one of those myths that busts any meaningful dialogue between people like you and I on these issued because there is this underlying "liberals hate the troops" frame to the discussion. I'm just trying to set the record straight.