Topic #1: Obama or Clinton for President..?.er, I mean Democratic nominee. Let's keep to their ISSUES and QUALIFICATIONS for prez please. Let's keep our pond clean. // Topic #2: Healthcare Solutions // Topic #3: China's human rights abuses
Beijing Olympics. Tibetan monk protests. Historic repression & desire for Tibet autonomy. Police crackdown.
Violence against monks. Violence against Han Chinese. Understandable anger against Chinese state violence. Understandable anger against Tibetans who commited acts of violence at Han Chinese. China continues crackdown, continues today.
Chinese Media control and suppression. Blackout in China. Censorship in China. Chinese voices of patriotic constructive criticism, of consideration of human rights, and of mediation, shouted down, silenced. Western media predominant focus on China human rights abuses, less on Tibetan violence towards Han Chinese. Latent & state-instigated Chinese nationalism--both in China and abroad.
What has happened/is happening to discourse & discussion in America? One development that must be accentuated and crucially reversed is the censorship & stifling of basic discourse, in America:
* * *
The media took note first when Duke University's Chinese international student Wang Qianyuan was harrassed on April 16th and continually mobbed with threats till this day, for attempting to mediate at a Tibetan vs. Chinese rally and for speaking for human rights. Wang's family in China is in hiding from numerous death threats by fellow Chinese.
(A neighbor in the Chinese city of Qingdao walks past graffiti saying "Kill everyone in the home" and "Kill traitors" painted outside the family home of Duke undergraduate Grace Wang. AFP/Getty Images)
Today's NYT article takes a broader assessment of this development that has taken place, of talk (in America!) on Tibet-China stifled & censored. By whom? Indeed, if we as Americans lose sight of our foundational principles to speak freely, discuss freely, to protect and defend speech & discussion from intimidation at all costs, then it is really we ourselves who have censored our own principles. It would be we ourselves who have outsourced another one of our goods to the authoritarian People's Republic of China (the MADE IN CHINA brand of "speech" & "discourse").
Monica Almeida/The New York Times Min Zhu, center, was removed from an event with a monk at the University of Southern California after a bottle was thrown.
"...Campuses including Cornell, the University of Washington in Seattle and the University of California, Irvine, have seen a wave of counterdemonstrations using tactics that seem jarring in the American academic context. At the University of Washington, students fought to limit the Dalai Lama’s address to nonpolitical topics. At Duke, pro-China students surrounded and drowned out a pro-Tibet vigil; a Chinese freshman who tried to mediate received death threats, and her family was forced into hiding.
And last Saturday, students from as far as Florida and Tennessee traveled to Atlanta to picket CNN after a commentator, Jack Cafferty, referred to the Chinese as “goons and thugs.” (CNN said he was referring to the government, not the people.)...
“We’ve been smothered for too long time,” said Jasmine Dong, another graduate student who attended the U.S.C. lecture.
By that, Ms. Dong did not mean that Chinese students had been repressed or censored by their own government. She meant that the Western news media had not acknowledged the strides China had made or the voices of overseas Chinese. “We are still neglected or misunderstood as either brainwashed or manipulated by the government,” she said...
Rather than blend in to the prevailing campus ethos of free debate, the more strident Chinese students seem to replicate the authoritarian framework of their homeland, photographing demonstration participants and sometimes drowning out dissent.
A Tibetan student who declined to be identified for fear of harassment said he decided not to attend a vigil for Tibet on his campus, which he also did not want identified because there are so few Tibetans there. “It’s not that I didn’t want to, I really did want to go — it’s our cause,” he said. “At the same time, I have to consider that my family’s back there, and I’m going back there in May.”
Another factor fueling the zeal of many Chinese demonstrators could be that they, too, intend to return home; the Chinese government is widely believed to be monitoring large e-mail lists.
Universities have often tried to accommodate the anger of their Chinese students. Before the Dalai Lama’s visit to the University of Washington, the campus Chinese Students and Scholars Association wrote to the university president expressing hopes that the visit would focus only on nonpolitical issues and not arouse anti-China sentiments. According to a posting on the group’s Web site, the university president, Mark A. Emmert, told them in a meeting that no political questions would be raised at the Dalai Lama’s speech. A spokesman said the university, which opened an office in Beijing last fall, had prescreened student questions before the Chinese students voiced their concerns.
Some experts say that colleges feel constrained from reining in the more extreme protests through a combination of concerns about cultural sensitivity and a desire to expand their own ties with China.
“I think there tends to be a great deal of self-censorship,” said Peter Gries, director of the Institute for U.S.-China Issues at the University of Oklahoma, “and not just among American China scholars but among the whole web of people who do business with China, including school administrators.” "
I am deeply concerned that Chinese authorities detained peaceful demonstrators in Tibet and used excessive force against them. Among the detainees were the following 15 Tibetan monks who were arrested on March 10, according to the Tibetan Center for Human Rights and Democracy:
Samten (m), aged 17, Lungkar Monastery, Qinghai Province Trulku Tenpa Rigsang, (m), aged 26, Lungkar Monastery, Qinghai Province Gelek Pel (m) aged 32 Lungkar Monastery, Qinghai Province Lobsang (m) aged 15, Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Lobsang Thukjey (m), aged 19 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Tsultrim Palden (m), aged 20 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Lobsher (m), aged 20 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Phurden, (m), aged 22 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Thupdon (m), aged 24 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Lobsang Ngodup (m), aged 29 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Lodoe (m), aged 30 Onpo Monastery, Sichuan Province Thupwang (m), aged 30, Darthang Monastery Pema Garwang (m), aged 30, Darthang Monastery Tsegyam (m), aged 22, Kashi Monastery Soepa (m), aged 30, Mangye Monastery
On Monday, March 10, a group that included these 15 detained monks began a March from Sera Monastery towards Barkhor, Lhasa. Chinese authorities soon stopped their peaceful demonstration and arrested many protesters. The monks were detained solely for exercising their fundamental human right to freedom of expression, calling on the government to ease “patriotic re-education” campaigns which forces them to denounce the Dalai Lama and subjects them to government propaganda. There is no information of their current whereabouts or of any charges brought against them. They remain at high risk of torture and other ill-treatment.
I urge you to immediately release the 15 monks named above, as well as all others detained for peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression, association and assembly. I call on you to fully account for all those detained during the demonstrations and to ensure that they are not tortured or otherwise ill-treated. Please ensure that the detainees have access to medical care and lawyers.
As of this moment there are 476,476 signatures collected over the past two days. The goal is to push 1 million signatures worldwide, so please pass the word along. If you are new to this blog, in the posts below I have collected and commented upon some of the happenings in Tibet since March 10th.
Petition to Chinese President Hu Jintao:
As citizens around the world, we call on you to show restraint and respect for human rights in your response to the protests in Tibet, and to address the concerns of all Tibetans by opening meaningful dialogue with the Dalai Lama. Only dialogue and reform will bring lasting stability. China's brightest future, and its most positive relationship with the world, lies in harmonious development, dialogue and respect.
After decades of repression, Tibetans are crying out to the world for change. China's leaders are right now making a crucial choice between escalating brutality or dialogue that could determine the future of Tibet, and China.
We can affect this historic choice -- China does care about its international reputation. But it will take an avalanche of global people power to get the government's attention. The Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has called for restraint and dialogue: he needs the world's people to support him. Fill out the form below to sign the petition--and spread the word.
Thank you, Barack Obama. Probably 98% of politicians would have simply reactively responded directly to the specific sensationalized media hype of the day, instead of talking forcefully and in nuance about the true and stifling larger picture. And there is probably no true and larger picture, domestically in America, that is harder nor more crucial to figure out so that we can find solutions and move forward, finally, than Race. More often than not I find MoveOn.org's "action emails" to their members to be so sloppy, thoughtless so as to be almost propogandastic (despite if I might agree with the ultimate opinion), and uncalled-for, so today I almost wrote off their email as another shrill cheer, this one that praised and promoted Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech.
However, I watched the speech. And I could not stop watching--except for the parts I was concurrently typing down notes to myself of why each successive part was so successful and incredible of a speech, so after jotting I had to "rewind" the YouTube video to find the place where I had lost track of the particulars of what he was saying, amongst which the particulars were more than in abundance, and begin again watching in captivation where I had left off--all the way to the end of the 37:39. Yes, I watched through without complaint a 37+ min. political speech and I venture to say that so did millions of Americans yesterday, and here I even sincerely encourage anyone and everyone to watch it.
In watching it, original source, you are not getting the stupid and useless sound bites that spread like wildfire and is the terribly petty media that has dominated our national politics, everyday lives, and discourse my entire lifetime; instead, with convenience (YouTube: play, "rewind," "fast forward" all you want), experience the type of actual societal evolution and morph that takes place--in great writing, words, and oratory--that captures What Specifically Has Been Going On in our country--and hopefully, with its verbalization into form and contour brings the hollowed out capacity now for actions to fill in where words have just delineated, and enlightened. In essence, proactive intellect like Obama's speech is the first real step to how we as a country "get past" race/color, or better yet, "go on" with it now, differently from before, within a truer skin.
Wow, that last paragraph was pretty grandiose. Guess by transferance I'm just practicing my own oratory skills on paper. In contrast to lofty oratory, below are my sloppy notes taken during the speech, if you care:
not good for sound bites, but I think he's a pretty sharp guy with an amazing understanding of things,and doesn't hurt that he's about the best orator that's been around in politics
those 10-word recaps every 1000 seconds, popping up on CNN bottom bar, WHILE HE IS TALKING = dumb
Expounds at length, & w/ sustained precision (compared to conventional standards of a speech, esp. a national one) the Nuance on RACE IN AMERICA -"Black experience," the cliche; and then the real many aspects, components, and kinds, and sources of all of those -"White experience," the cliche; and then the real many aspects, components, and kinds, and sources of all of those
-The exactness of our stale racial stalemate--the constant actors of "others" and "within us" that exploits the particulars for this and that, to continue that stalemate
-Exactness of the race Exploitation on all sides
-Calls out: Exactness of PARTS FOR UNDERSTANDING, extricate them, feel out textures, grab hold, and HOW TO MOVE AHEAD
-Extricate the problems in media, public habits of exploitation-consumption-perpetuation of sensational, meaningless, racist/sexist/blahblah-ist petty ignorant instances in isolation that create the stalemate of decades--burst open that slimy bubble, expose it to air so it can dry out and die, eventually
What has happened/is happening in Tibet? What are information streams and reactions to this week's violence in the Tibet Autonomous Region under China?
My previous post elicited some of the peculiar tones of international journalism--by necessity, because of China's iron-fisted censorship--covering "what has happened"; but here I would just like to point out two jarring case studies of direct media censorship & propaganda, currently being carried out by the state of China, that can be directly observed and experienced by anyone this moment, thanks to our new-media technological era. In essence, China's censorship and propoganda reach extends to you and me, whether we are in New York, Miami, San Francisco, Nashville, or London.
Police showed great restraint and used no lethal force in dealing with the riots in Lhasa last Friday, the chairman of the Tibet autonomous regional government said yesterday.
"The riots caused heavy loss of life and property, and seriously disturbed social order," Qiangba Puncog told a news briefing in Beijing.
Qiangba Puncog
Thirteen innocent civilians were burned or stabbed to death, he said, adding that calm had returned to Lhasa.
On Friday, violence involving physical assault, destruction of property, looting and arson broke out in urban Lhasa. Rioters set fires at more than 300 locations, including 214 homes and shops, and smashed and burned 56 vehicles.
In one case, a civilian was doused with gasoline and burned to death by rioters.
Sixty-one members of the armed police were injured, including six critically. Rioters beat a police officer into a coma and cut a fist-size piece of flesh out of his buttock, he said.
Yet "public security personnel and police showed maximum restraint during law enforcement" and "throughout the process, (security forces) did not carry or use any destructive weapons. Only tear gas and water cannons were employed," Qiangba Puncog said...
Have you ever heard of the China Daily? I hadn't, and hadn't ever come across it before, but wow, at first I was confused at the paraphrase as the first sentence; then quotation; immediately followed by paraphrase, and truly so on and so forth till the end. And every single sentence and phrase from all sources vehemently condemned the rioters and praised the government. And then, in conformity, even every single one of the many links listed under "Related readings"..
I thought for a second I was reading The Onion's satire, but very dark humor. I guess the scary thing is that this China Times article appeared as the 3rd down the list this morning (sitting here in front of my laptop in an apartment in New York) when I simply Googled the Tibet issue. But anyways I looked on Wikipedia what China Times is and it's (according to Wikipedia entry, at least) a CCP State-run paper, so that explains that; though troubling that it's the widest circulating English-newspaper in China..
2) Examples like this abound, and if you have spoken with any friends or relatives who are expats working in China for the past years, you might have already been told about this surreal 1984-ish, propoganda-state aspect of regular access (or lack thereof) to information regarding any "sensitive" issues. But in any case here I would like to point all of us towards a poignant and depressingly intriguing post by a blogger in Beijing, who wrote today,
Tibet News Blackout -
My site is still blocked (I am using an industrial-strength proxy if any on you need one, way stronger than Anonymous and much faster than Tor), and I was called about it yesterday by a "real media." You can find my quote buried in this article.
I've had CNN playing in the background the past few nights, and it's downright comical how often the screen just goes dark shortly after mention of the T word. Once again I ask my friends over at the ministry of propaganda if they sincerely believe with all their heart that this kind of ham-fisted tactic makes China look better, and if they sincerely believe it achieves their goal of keeping CNN viewers ignorant of what's happening in Tibet. If something ugly happens at the Olympic Games in August, are they just going to blackout the media broadcasts? And do they think they will be admired for it?
***
Conclusion of my own sense on all of this, the past few days...
This blogger of the popular blog, The Peking Duck, his name is Richard Burger, and incidentally the article that he was quoted in in Business Week, also had a few quotes and statements that really ring true to me.
Since riots broke out in Tibet last week, authorities have imposed martial law and tried to control the flow of information into and out of the region. The government has banned journalists and tourists from entering Tibet. And officials have imposed strict controls over the Internet in an effort to spin what happened in Tibet and neighboring provinces to conform with Beijing's version of events... With the censoring of Chinese blog and BBC postings that do not reflect the government's position, most of the Chinese postings left standing tend to present an overwhelming resentful attitude towards Tibetans.
And lastly, Rebecca Mackinnon, assistant professor at the University of Hong Kong's Journalism & Media Studies Center, is quoted as saying,
"There are a lot of people that think the Internet is going to bring information and democracy and pluralism in China just by existing. I think what we're seeing with this situation in Tibet is while the Chinese government's system of Internet censorship controls and propaganda is not infallible by any means, it works well enough in times of crisis like this."
There has been a significant silence--or more accurately, state prohibition from accessing information and therefore few substantive mainstream media accounts (except for Chinese state-run media and video clips)--about what happened during, immediately after, and in the days following the Tibetan monk protests on 3/10. I think it is very chilling & telling: China's state policies of censorship, media control, and how this manipulation--in essence, propoganda--has truly affected the individual opinions and societal reactions of Chinese citizens to what was assumed to have happened in Tibet.
Now I will keep my comments to a minimal, and let some articles--most of which are eye-witness accounts "who wish to remain anonymous," or non-Tibetan Chinese understandings of and reactions to what has gone on--that I've pieced together, speak for themselves.
3/14: Eyewitness: Monk 'kicked to floor' --BBC Online Sub-headline: "With tension rising in Tibet following a series of anti-China protests, the BBC spoke to an eyewitness who saw police on Wednesday beating monks at one of three monasteries which have been sealed. He wishes to be identified only as John."
3/16: Lhasa eyewitness: 'City in cinders'--BBC Online Sub-headline: "After days of violent street protests, a Western tourist in Lhasa, who wishes to remain anonymous, describes a tense, deserted city firmly in the hands of the Chinese military."
3/17: Chinese react to violence in Tibet--BBC Online Sub-headline: As the deadline for Tibetan protesters to surrender to the police passes, people elsewhere in China give their reaction to the protests and violence in Tibet.
ZHANG YI FAN, STUDENT, BEIJING
Zhang Yi Fan says the Dalai Lama should have called for restraint
I stand by my government on this issue.
The Dalai Lama is the main cause of the suffering of both Tibetans and Chinese in Tibet. He could stop the protesters but he doesn't.
He gave the people who remain loyal to him the wrong ideas and asked kind-hearted people to risk their lives for his political interests.
Our government has had to send in the troops and protect our people to make society stable.
People haven't paid enough attention to the suffering of the Chinese in Tibet. They were targeted by the rioters.
We can't get enough information because the government doesn't let us know what is happening in Tibet. All the information I get is from foreign websites. Many people here don't know there is a serious situation in Tibet. It's just people like me who care about politics.
But I think the government has done the right thing in this instance. Many of their claims can be proved by the footage we have seen of destruction in Lhasa.
YU FU-MING, COMPANY MANAGER, BEIJING
I think Tibet is a small problem that can be resolved. The Chinese economy and Chinese society is very stable now. The economy is growing fast.
Life for people all across China and all its regions is getting better and better.
We must remember that all over the world there are battles between people with differences. And these differences exist in China too.
I think China needs its stability and so I think it is fine for the army to go into Tibet. Every government should show its force and its ability to control troubled situations.
If things are proving difficult to control, the army is the best option.
We get a lot of criticism but the best way is to follow law and government. I think Buddhism is a very good religion and I don't think the monks should act so much against government.
JINJIE CHEN, LAWYER, SHANGHAI
The timing is very sensitive. China is due to have its Olympic Games this year.
Jinjie Chen says people have the right to demonstrate peacefully
I think this is why those people chose this time to riot. Many are unsatisfied with the Chinese government and the country. They want to cause riots, maybe even engage in some terrorist activities before, during or after the Olympic Games.
These people know that it is a huge thing for China to have the Olympics. The world's attention is on us. It is a good opportunity for them to take advantage.
Honestly, I think these are the actions of a small number of people.
But, I have to say, it makes me angry. I think it makes most Chinese people angry. Everyone has their own problems but I do not think that such violent acts are a good option.
We must make the distinction between a peaceful demonstration and violent anti-social acts. I fully understand people who want to make their voice heard and raise their ideas. That is their right.
But I saw evidence that young Tibetans had planned to act violently. They had bought bricks and stones with them. That can't be right.
In Lanzhou, ordinary people appear to know little of what is going on in Gansu's Tibetan regions and beyond.
I understand the disturbance has been organized by the Dalai Lama to target the Olympics
Man in Lanzhou
In the Lanzhou Morning Post there was no mention of the trouble that had erupted just down the road in the province's Gannan Autonomous Tibetan prefecture.
The front-page headline in the Lanzhou Morning Post followed the lead of the previous night's news bulletins, reporting Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's re-selection as the county's premier.
When asked about the protests, one woman told the BBC: "The price of consumer goods has gone up very rapidly so I think the demonstrations must be linked to that."
Ordinary people that wanted to comment on the protests had little sympathy with the Tibetans and their cause.
"I think they are causing a disturbance without reason. I understand it has been organised by the Dalai Lama to target the Olympics," said one man.
There are good people in China. Very good people, within China, despite the substantial number of activists currently exiled in the U.S., restricted from returning home because of their past valiant works as Chinese journalists, writers, artists, and activists, for democracy and human rights.
"I met Hu Jia in the autumn of 2001 doing AIDS volunteer work. We fell in love and married on January 2nd 2006. A week after our wedding party, Hu Jia was put under house arrest by the State Security Police (SSP), and after a month he disappeared while under house arrest... He came back from SSP custody, as thin as a lath, became seriously ill and was hospitalized for early stage cirrhosis. I was so afraid he might disappear again that I guarded my lover, and assisted him with his work in AIDS and defending human rights." ~written by Zeng Jinyan, at the introduction to the documentary, Prisoner in Freedom City
In regards to those good people still living within China: the following articles exemplify how the "good" (in terms of talent to club down human rights) government in China has taken action towards those good people--patriots, who, despite the very real fear of Big Brother, continue to speak up for and about freedom and human rights for their sisters, brothers, sons, daughters, and friends together living in China...
...the Chinese government ruthlessly shuts them up, propogates their authoritarianism by "making them disappear":
(I) How nice, how thoughtful of the Chinese government to note and observe our "holiday season" this past December '07.
"The authorities have detained a prominent Chinese human rights advocate on suspicion of subversion, escalating a crackdown on dissent during the West’s holiday season." ~NYTimes, "China Detains Dissent, Citing Subversion," 12/30/07
What a gift! Merry Xmas! xoxo
(II) That "prominent Chinese human rights advocate" mentioned above is Hu Jia. This picture to your right is him with "his wife, Zeng Jinyan, and their daughter, Qianci, in November, before his arrest." Aww. :) That's a real nice picture. Right? Well
"Mr. Hu was dragged away on charges of subverting state power while Ms. Zeng was bathing their newborn daughter, Qianci." ~NYTimes, "Dissident's Arrest Hints at Olympic Crackdown," 1/30/08
The article goes on to describe, heartwarmingly: "Telephone and Internet connections to the apartment were severed. Mother and daughter are now under house arrest. Qianci, barely 2 months old, is probably the youngest political prisoner in China." Sucks to live in China, and to want to speak up for and about freedom. Or to be born in China, under house arrest because your parents want to speak up for or about freedom. I think that is a beautiful picture, I truly do. <---Was I being sarcastic? No, I was just talking about that family photo 2 inches above, and 2 inches to the right...
So what exactly was Hu Jia doing, to deserve and account for so much Chinese state attention, monitoring, and supervision, before his door was metaphorically (and possibly literally) knocked down by "state security agents"?
He disseminated information about human rights cases, peasant protests and other politically touchy topics even though he often lived under de facto house arrest.
WOW! WHAT-A-RADICAL-UNPATRIOTIC-SUBVERSIVE-SHITHEAD-ANARCHIST, that pesky Hu Jia. Hmm... So... What I'm doing precisely right now, typing the words you're reading, "disseminating information about human rights cases," if I were instead simply located on China's soil, and was a Chinese national, I'd abruptly become the latest political prisoner? So that's how the newest generation of energetic citizen-idols seeks fame, over there in China! And yes: even unprofessional, wanna-be, non-journalist bloggers (like me) are and have been thrown in China's pleasant jails.
(III) Let's proceed on this pleasant journey. So today, on NYTimes I see the headline, "Chinese Rights Activist Reported Missing," and I think, No! Hu Jia can't be missing. Hu Jia was taken by the Chinese authorities and is sitting--he must be--safely behind bars; there must have just been some mixup. I mean, how could he be "reported missing"? Must have filed the papers wrong, those wacky Chinese bureaucrats, just like in the U.S. lol! C'mon, even his wife appears safe and sound in that enjoyable YouTube documentary posted above.
But then I find out the "Chinese rights activist" who today is "reported missing" is not Hu Jia, but Hu Jia's friend, Mr. Teng Biao.
"The lawyer, Teng Biao, 34, a part-time college professor, disappeared on Thursday evening after calling to say he would be home in 20 minutes, said his wife, Wang Ling. Shortly afterward, she said, she heard shouting in the parking lot below the family apartment and later found her husband’s empty car. Witnesses told her that two men had dragged someone out of the car and taken him away, she said." NYTimes, 3/8/08
Why are the Chinese Security Officials so fond of practices like making Hu Jia "disappear while under house arrest," and now making Mr. Teng disappear, with the residual impressions of two men "dragging" "someone" "out of the car" "away"?
Don't they know this PR is not magical like David Blaine, but instead is slightly-disturbingly jarring, with a tiny splash of subtle terror lingering under the tongue? I mean, that can't be their purpose, right?, haven't they even glanced at any of the introductory textbooks on good marketing and PR. With all their booming economy, you'd think they would have by now. Maybe the Chinese Communist Party is just better at mathematics, something like
overt suppression + subtle terror once in a while - human rights = running our "stable, stable, stable dammit!," country = keeping our power
Well, enough of this tangent. Let us see what was Mr. Teng's sin--I mean, virtue--that he be graced with this benevolent state action of disappearing?:
Already mentioned above, he is a lawyer; a part-time professor. aka A terrible man.
Made "commentary on China’s record on human rights." Like, duhhhh. Obviously, he wasn't an overly bright or insightful man, either.
Called "for the release of his friend and fellow rights campaigner, Hu Jia." This Mr.-Teng-guy disgusts me.
"Mr. Teng was also in a group of lawyers, many living in Beijing, who represent dissidents and accept politically delicate cases."
Okay, on this last point (and here, I am serious) he is certifiably insane. I mean, sheesh: Who the hell, as a lawyer, would represent dissidents and "accept politically delicate cases"--in a paranoically authoritarian state society, as documented from recent months all the way back to Tiananmen Square "crackdown"--when the rest of China without even trying is getting fat and bourgeois and nouveau riche, as are investors all over the world??? Well, I guess emulation of institutional logic, in progressive Western societies like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (I mean, c'mon, globalization, right?), might have sufficiently brought consensus towards China's policy of "neutralization of the certifiably insane." So people like Mr. Teng they just disappear. Let's have the Olympics! :) :)
Now what is there that one can do? Become an international relations expert; explain to the CCP that human rights need be centerpiece in a better world, in a better country; how about enacting a boycott or embargo on the Chinese economy? Let's take note of the second-to-last sentence in the article recounting Mr. Teng's disappearance yesterday evening amid "shouting in the parking lot" and "two men dragging someone out of the car and taking him away," conveniently also taking away his vocalist tendencies:
This week was notable for the opening of the National People’s Congress, the annual meeting of the Communist Party-controlled legislature. Typically, the police keep close watch on dissidents to guard against any embarrassing incidents during important political gatherings.
So, China--that is, the Chinese government--has a fear, no, a terrible phobia about embarrassment. Important point being that their fear is not debilitating, though: fear of embarrassment does not debilitate them. In fact, it drives the Chinese Communist Party to crack down on the truly good Chinese people, even more.
Ethics (and for that matter, morals, human rights) is far from the factor that drives, and would drive the Chinese Communist Party to change a hair on their body. Instead, the answer against the CCP's fear-based suppression is the object, itself, of the CCP's fears: embarrassment.
* * *
This is a simple yet crucial call to everyone!:Embarrass the hell out of China's suppression all that you can--especially those whom, like all of us, are free and far away from within the confines of China's vigilante-state borders (excuse me if you are currently reading this in China somehow, despite China's censored internet)--Read about all of China's human rights abuses! Sign and spread all the petitions I've listed below (tell me if you know of any others, I'll add them)! Pass on this blog post to friends, then that'll go to friends of friends, and then to friends of friends of friends!*
(*Remember back when email was new and chain letters were actually cool to send & receive? **Let's bring that idea back, 2.0, ***for the purposes of bringing up China's oppression, ****and for the ends of bringing down China's suppression!!!)
Amnesty International petition: "China currently has the largest recorded number of imprisoned journalists and cyber-dissidents in the world." "Shi Tao, a Chinese journalist, used his Yahoo! email account to send a message to a U.S.-based pro-democracy website. Seven months later, he was arrested and charged with the vaguely-worded crime of 'illegally providing state secrets to foreign entities'. Urge your Representative to intervene on his behalf and help repair a broken system of neglect of human rights."
PEN, human rights organization and the oldest international literary organization: urges China "to facilitate the immediate and unconditional release of all writers and journalists currently imprisoned and end the practice of detaining, harassing, and censoring writers and journalists in China; abide by China’s pledge that 'there will be no restrictions on media reporting and movement of journalists up to and including the Olympic Games'; and end internet censorship and reform laws t hat are used to imprison writers and journalists and suppress the free exchange of information and ideas on the internet." Add your signature!
At www.humanityatstake.com, listed under Appendix B down the page is a petition I wrote in 2004 "Supporting Democratic Taiwan Against China's Missile Deployment." At the time I wrote that, there were 496 ballistic missiles that China had pointed at Taiwan. 496 already felt like way too many then. That number has grown every year, the growth accelerating and now there are over 1,200 missiles pointed at the peaceful, democratic island country that many of my relatives (and many of your Taiwanese friends' relatives) now live. Add your name to the petition! (I hope to write an updated--sadly, updated with almost 3X as many missiles now--petition soon)
Human Rights Watch's helpful resources and insights about how anyone can take action and "promote human rights in China."
Do not discount the power of embarrassment (via education, via these petitions, or a simple reading, talking about, and passing around of information like all of the stuff in this blog post) to tangibly change China, Change China!, little by little. Just look at the fact that, regarding Sudan's genocide throughout all the years of China's economic partnership and weapons-sale profiting, China has finally, despite a bailout PR campaign defending it's Sudan policy, in little evanescant glimmers, taken some action by "expressing" its grave concern about Sudan's mass killing. This glimmer came only after Spielberg backed out of being an artistic director to the Beijing Olympics, citing "China’s economic, military and diplomatic ties to the government of Sudan," and other groups' smear campaigns of the "Genocide Olympics."
Like Hu Jia's and Mr. Teng's joint open letter--“The Real China and the Olympics”--that might be the main effort that led to both their imprisonments, you can similarly do a partto Call out China, Embarrass China, Change China.
I'd thought Super Tuesday would be the end, and Super Wednesday would bring the true beginning of this awakened Democratic beast, readying in unison behind 1 candidate to tear the Republicans to pieces after 8-long-years of this nightmare. Instead we're split down the middle, while McCain has all but been crowned, and polls showing a close Republican contest if the national elections took place today.
Damnit Democrats, decide already!!! please.
Below is not an Endorsement, but Disclaimer on The Frog's Personal Vote
I do not endorse Obama, but I favor and voted for Obama. I will go no further to explain my decision because there is plenty enough of my braintracks on FrogBulletin, and I do not purport to have a clear & significant basis for having voted Obama; instead, I have been continually conflicted and uncontinually convinced (hear an audio interview of me about my conflicted-ness by the musician/political-blogger, Alexis Stember, that she post on her blog Wonder Land. Her post's title is "Honest Abe on Obama". Thanks.) due to the particular deficiencies in both candidates. On the bright side, on many other--and in fact, the majority--of Clinton's and Obama's characteristics I have been very impressed, and feel optimistic, hopeful, and energized.
For the sake of some sort, some purpose of transparency here, I had been meaning to tell all who mosey to this blog my ballot's preference for Obama, since content and remarks presented here (except the comments, which I encourage but are regrettably threadbare) are under my sole responsibility and discretion. But I chose not to publish this post until after Super Tuesday, since there are already a flood of meaningful and meaningless endorsements (American Apparel emailed a company endorsement to their customers, can you believe that? An annoyed friend pointed out, What if Wal-Mart began endorsing candidates??) bombarding everyone these days, and I did not want to add to that choir.
Next
What comes? I was briefly scouring some news sites for the latest, but instead of taking the currently bipolar swings of the media (at least on NYT, all articles there--Obama's monstrous new fundraising, Hillary's personal $5mil loan to keep afloat, Obama's superior electability, etc., etc.--are currently Obamamanic), here's a tidbit published just now on RealClearPolitics, that reminds Democrats of the ruthless Red-Blue dogfight inevitably ahead, no matter whether Obama or Clinton wins...
However tough the Democratic race, it's nothing compared to what the victor will face in the fall. The Clinton brand of hardball is no tougher than what the Republicans have played in every election in the last two decades, and what they will play against either Clinton or Obama.
If you're reading at 12:13am the day of casting your Super Tues. ballot, you are a very pragmatic shopper or procrastinator. Here is an endorsement each for ClintonCare (unfortunately, this weakly made argument is the best one I could find) and ObamaCare.
Significantly, this has been the "most-emailed" NYTimes article today: Paul Krugman's ClintonCare endorsement: "new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost." He even spits at you these staggering numbers!: [a plan resembling Obama's] "would cover 23 million of those currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion per year... An otherwise identical plan with mandates would cover 45 million of the uninsured — essentially everyone — at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion. Over all, the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700."
Paul Krugman is a tricky fellow, though. The "new estimates" that he bases these shocking estimates come solely from a paper by respected economist Jonathan Gruber of M.I.T. However, note all the "plan resembling" and "Obama-type" and "Clinton-type" phraseology employed by Krugman. Obviously, the average reader (I missed his rhetorical slight-of-hand on the first read, and was convincingly shocked, the effect Krugman was no doubt going for) with little time (fortunately though, I am as of now sadly unemployed!) would have glossed over these. However, Gruber's paper does not specify Clinton or Obama's plans, and as for his simulation of a plan with or w/out mandates (which Clinton has), those numbers are based on the assumption "that 95% of those who would not voluntarily choose to insure" indeed become insured through the mandate." Harold Pinter's critique of Krugman's article points out, though, that the Massachusettes Universal mandate has so far enrolled just over 50% of its previously uninsured.
Miles Mogulescu has been writing a series since October 10th entitled, "Why Not Single Payer," advocating for Single-Payer/Medicare for All, and has been blasting both Clinton and Obama (and previously, Edwards) for moderating, having no guts/foresight, incorporating the terrible private-insurance fiasco we currently have into their future plans, and for dropping the true universal healthcare policy that will also provide better medical care like an emberrassing step-child. In today's lukewarm endorsement of ObamaCare over ClintonCare, 2 points he makes resonate with me, especially the latter: 1) ObamaCare will be "easier to run on against the Republicans in the fall, and to potentially gain enough popular support to get through Congress without too many crippling compromises." He explains,
Here's what the Republicans will be saying in the fall: "If you're an uninsured family making over $40-$50,000 a year so you aren't poor enough for subsidies but can't afford insurance, Hillary will garnishee thousands of dollars of your wages since the average policy for a family of 4 is around $12,000." That should be enough to scare off millions of middle class families earning less than $100,000, and make them think twice about voting for a Democrat. The growing failure of Romney's Massachusetts plan will give ample evidence to back these Republican charges.
2) He prefaces his endorsement of Obama as the closer-choice-to-"Medicare for All"-candidate with the pointed rebuke,
Despite Obama's political calculation to the contrary, the combination of a President with Obama's extraordinary leadership skills and a budding mass movement already supporting [Medicare for All Bill] HR 676 (which includes over 235 union organizations in 40 states, including 60 Central Labor Councils, as well as many citizens and religious organizations) the American people can be convinced to support Medicare For All.
He goes on to praise that under Obama as opposed to Clinton, the grassroots movement towards Medicare for All will gain even more momentum; if a state like CA tries to enact single-payer in their own state, Obama will be more likely not to block it; and lastly,
Maybe I'm being naïve, but, in the long-run, the fact that Obama understands single payer and is not hostile to it as a concept, gives me hope that we might get there, or close to there, over the course of an 8 year Obama Presidency... A mass movement for single payer healthcare has already begun to take shape. My hope is that an Obama Presidency will help give it the space to flourish, and to push Universal Healthcare beyond the bounds of Obama's more modest proposals.
Personally, as I stated before, I believe we as a country need single-payer/government/"Medicare for All"--whichever you want to call it--coverage, and Mogulescu's series, "Why Not Single Payer," as with other articles, conversations, books, reports, health care experiences, and observations I've come across, indeed convinces me so.
Super Tuesday is tomorrow. We may know by nighttime who our next president will.. I mean, our next Dem candidate will be.
On the pre-invasion Iraq votes, & future Iraq plans, in their own words:
[From Friday's debate, Hillary explaining the issue of her "judgment" on voting to allow Bush's invasion of Iraq]
[a very sleepy account, Obama tooting his own horn, (sleepily), on his foresight in voting against Bush's invasion of Iraq]
Pamela Leavey's article on "The Clinton-Obama Iraq Feud" argues that despite all the hoopla about Obama's pre-war vote, after the war began, Obama did little to "back up his call" and his voting record is as Democratic centrist as hers. Maybe (or maybe not) we're focusing too much on blamegame of the past: who has a more solid plan for the future withdrawal and stabilizing of Iraq?? You can read and decide for yourself at their campaigns' websites here, * Hillary Clinton’s Plan to End the War in Iraq as President * Obama’s Plan for Ending the War in Iraq
Healthcare, damnit, who'll realistically get us to better, Universal coverage?
First off, the well-respected Commonwealth Fund, in a January 15th article, "Envisioning the Future: The 2008 Presidential Candidates' Health Reform Proposals," confirmed my, and for-all-practical-purposes everyone's unanimous hunch that the Republicans (except maybe Romney, who pushed through Massachusetts's' universal health coverage) are kooks in terms of understanding how to improve healthcare, and in contrast the report concludes,
the mixed private–public group insurance with a shared responsibility for financing proposed by the leading Democratic candidates and the public insurance reform proposals put forward by Kucinich have the greatest potential to move the health care system toward high performance... [these plans] have the potential to provide everyone with comprehensive and affordable health insurance, achieve greater equity in access to care, realize efficiencies and cost savings in the provision of coverage and delivery of care, and redirect incentives to improve quality.
Since the lovable little Kucinich is out of the race, you can compare the detail differences of Hillary vs. Barack plans in this exceptional Commonwealth Fund chart.
In this sloppy article, Jacqueline Fox makes the same points that other Obama supporters have made: that Clinton's " mandate would be meaningless in practice.. [because] she’s proposed no enforcement mechanism"; that both successfully propose expanding Medicaid & S-CHIP, cost control, affordability and subsidies; that somehow, "there’s good reason to expect Obama’s plan will cover more people more quickly." (article doesn't elaborate on why Clinton's plan is inferior on this front). What I don't get is the simplifying characterization (made by many writers like Fox and even Obama himself) that Hillary's plan forces people to buy their currently unaffordable insurance--the way I understand it, it is obvious that she also couples the mandate with other measures to make healthcare more affordable. Somehow characterizing her mandate as "callous," I believe is misguided, and throws off the discussion from the real issue of Whether the mandate get us to better & universal healthcare.
In a very readable analysis that is as well-researched, organized, and articulate as any I've seen about healthcare and the Clinton v. Obama debate, Abhas Gupta concludes:
Like I said before, both candidates' plans are very similar, yet I am inclined to more strongly support Senator Obama's plan. I firmly believe that greater private competition in a public-defined playing field is what's needed to improve our health care system--the Obama plan's National Health Insurance Exchange most closely captures this sentiment. I also strongly oppose a mandate as a matter of principle, but more importantly, because we are likely facing a recession and a mandate would only serve to exacerbate our economic troubles.
Definitely read over his short article to realistically understand more about the issues facing healthcare, and the facts and figures beyond all the political mumbo-jumbo these days.
Lastly, here's an issue and viewpoint cautioning Obama's rhetoric regarding healthcare that has surfaced in the past few days. Ezra Klein points out:
Obama not only has a mandate for kids in his own health care plan -- what if the parents can't pay, one might ask? -- but he said, in last night's debate, "If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place." That, of course, is exactly what a mandate does. Gaming the system, in this context, means not purchasing health care. And Obama is now threatening to force them to pay back premiums. That's a harsher penalty than anything Clinton has proposed.
Also, Klein believes that while Obama's campaign has recently sent out mailings stating that "Hillary's healthcare plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it," Klein guesses that Obama's healthcare plan, if he's elected president, will eventually need to be reformed to include a mandate (in Gupta's article: "Obama's advisers have stated that a mandate may be a possibility later when health care costs can be controlled."), and so he's shooting himself in the foot right now with his mandate-slandering.
...he's decided to respond to the inadequacies of his own policy by fear-mongering against not only better policy, but the type of policy he's probably going to have to eventually adopt. It's very, very short-sighted.
As for tomorrow...
Go vote! I missed all but the last 5 minutes of the SuperBowl, so maybe I'll get some buffalo wings as I watch tomorrow's anticipated results come in...
Less than 24 hrs from my last post, and John Edwards is officially off the map.
“It’s time for me to step aside so that history can — so that history can blaze its path.” Now extinguished, a sentence-long-eulogy on Edwards' candidacy: whereas Clinton, and gradually, Obama, have shown their inevitable tendancy towards moderation, I would venture to say that it was Edwards' true core boldness of vision, of plan, and of visible passion--on anti-poverty, on refocusing policy on the middle-class, on healthcare--that consistently forced H.C. & B.O. to catch up with more liberal stances and leftist platforms of their own. For sakes, please don't go back to devolving into halfway-conservatives now that the guy that grew up on a mill isn't around no more.. That strategy will NOT get Republicans finally out of the Whitehouse--haven't we learned that already in 2004?? Come out and assert your spines (from now until November), say what you mean and people will listen, instead of walking on eggshells like an unattractive donkey ass.
Though love letters have been slipped from both sides, Edwards has not endorsed either Clinton or Obama as of this moment; so what next? Seems like Obama's begun hurling a few verbal dampers to the other camp: writes the Associated Press, "Obama said Wednesday a Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency would be a step back to the past," (POW!--turning her strong arm experience against her) and Barack's own words, "Democrats will win in November and build a majority in Congress not by nominating a candidate who will unite the other party against us..." (BAM!--kicking her where it hurts).
Instead, I wonder which are some of the real issues that not-completely-decided voters would like elaboration on from Clinton & Obama, to help them decide in the next 5 days? On the right sidebar, I posted a poll for you, dear Reader, containing a list of my own making so you can click your own interest (it may direct the topics I seek out here on this blog). And as always, feel free to send links to good articles, ideas, and of course please do comment away!
Possibly because John Edwards is hastily (and reluctantly) falling off the map of realistic presidential contenders, his interview with NYTimes (1/25/08)--in which he revealed stark leftist contrast to Obama/Clinton--has unfortunately been little-noted by the press & the public.
Although similar in healthcare plan as his Democratic opponents, in this interview he boldly blurted out the political explitives that Obama/Clinton have been avoiding like the plague:
Regarding his health plan ("Medicare-plus") which would allow all Americans to choose between private insurance options and new government insurance packages modeled on Medicare,
"American health consumers will decide which works best. It could continue to be divided. But it could go in one direction or the other and one of the directions is obviously government or single payer. And I'm not opposed to that."
Booyakashah! It warms the populist heart & the "Simplify health coverage!" mind like mine.
Republican candidates and policy strategists have raised the specter of “socialized medicine” and depicted the Democratic plans as a back-door route to a so-called single-payer government system.
Mr. Edwards brushed off that critique. “There is nothing back-door about it,” he said. “It’s right through the front door. We’re going to let America decide what health care system works for them.”
Yes, it's all about liguistical framing. While Republicans have continued to
champion the array of "choices" amongst our dozens of dense healthcare plans as a God-given American right (as always, free market competition will naturally and justly lead to healthy citizenry), and
demonize the god-forsaken "Socialized Medicine" that these Communists are stealthily seeking to ram up the arse,
As for the running topic question on Frog(the)Bulletin!: What are the differences between Democrat front-runners Obama vs. Clinton? Forget it, vote Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!(?)
Reader "YOUknow" posted a comment below (& on fancy new sidebar) regarding her vote for Hillary and graciously also shared this link to NPR discussion on healthcare, though I haven't actually gone to listen to it, but will sometime in the future. YOUknow says it's "awesome," so I give it its own post here, for visibility. And anyways, glad always for anything to help keep NPR alive, especially after 7 yrs of Republican neglect. Another reason 2008 to get a Donkey in.
Otherwise, her sophistication, understanding, point of maturity in her plans, and of course, experience, all far exceed that of her young charismatic rival, says the New York Times editorial board, and they have decided
She is the best choice for the Democratic Party as it tries to regain the White House.
In their reward speech of praise, they gushed that the robotic competency of 1990s Hillary has humanized and wizened a long way and is now ready to inherent the crown from the Republicans. On basically all issues--international diplomacy, Iraq withdrawal, refocus on the middle-and-lower-class, civil liberties, an end to the suffocating partisanship etc.--NYTimes makes the blanket statement that the two platforms, in terms of direction, are practically identical. Hillary's platform is just more concrete; and as a political leader she is just more substantive--and the NYTimes believes substance over inspiration is what America needs from 2008-2012.
The idealist in me still roots for Barack and his ending-staled-partisanship, building-new-coalitions proslytizing; but when it comes to managing the tough diplomatic staredowns and security after withdrawal from Iraq, facing and managing new emergency crises whatever they may be, as NYT pointed out and I have to agree, I'd prefer my trust abdicated to the tested Hillary.
Dear Reader: Any thoughts on the editorial? On Hillary Clinton?
Over in California Steven Maviglio talks about a certain "Nunez/Perata health care bill" being debated--which the rest of the country has never heard of and has no reason to ever have--and lays out why federal healthcare is a politically unviable tease (article's title: "Single Payer Dreamland"). Independent from the right-wing's militaristic defense of the private (a.k.a. vulture) insurance companies against the Socialist Michael Moores of our great nation, Maviglio (he seems like a liberal realist) advocates indeed for a middle-road healthcare built on top, and incusive of, the current broken-system. Why? Inertia. Inertia of a big country, with big Insurance, Inc. that had come when you needed coverage to stay over on your couch, then ate your food, played your TV, and got fat and is now a staple in your living room like a big Jaba bully collecting protection money, stealthily locking out undesirables in the cold (residents of their own home) who can't/won't feed it properly or who request it to exert costly effort, and Jaba has no intention of ever leaving. Of course, there are always the many who befriend a bully, or else the rest have rooms comfortably tucked far enough away from the bully to enjoy the status quo, or at least not to give a mind:
The trouble with [single-payer-or-nothing] logic is that 2/3 of Californians get their insurance through their employer. They are largely immune from that implosion. And then there's the court of public opinion: single payer polls in either single digits or low double-digits...
A single-payer health care bill would have to pass the legislature. That's been done before, only to get vetoed by the Governor. So that means there's no shot of single payer health care being signed in California by 2011 at the earliest, since Gov. Schwarzenegger will be in office until then. ...
But I'll play along and say, okay, we'll have a Democratic governor willing to sign a single payer bill. Fine. Then guess what: that law will be put up for a referendum by a massive coalition of groups against it. And mark my words that every special interest group in creation will chip in heavily to make sure it never sees the light of day. Remember the prescription drug initiatives in 2005 that went down hard? Picture that times 25. The drug companies. The doctors. The insurance companies. Whether we like it or not, they kick ass when it comes to initiatives.
But wait, single-payer shoppers, there's more! Single payer will need billions of dollars to be implemented, billions of taxpayer dollars. And that means a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. Chances of that happening? Zero. Particularly when the state is bleeding red ink.
Maviglio's article goes on to conclude: Hey, despite the logical and near-unanimous understanding that Private Insurance sucks (our lives, our health, our medical practices, our wallets), Obama, Clinton, and even Edwards are right to abandon unpopular revolution--Instead, go for treatise! Let the beast stay fattening on our couch! At the end, Maviglio even graciously shows the inevitable pitfalls of ever reimagining our healthcare system, with the case in point of a YouTube link to Obama's own moderating evolution on the issue, courtesy of Clinton & Co.
2. Striaghtforward Health-care-for-all, language, & employing the obvious
David Moberg's article yesterday in the Valley Advocate is not so insightful and ends in a whimper, but it does single out the Republican stench--I mean, the elephant--in the room, that the Democrats have yet to flat-out say the 3 words, expansion of government, despite that
a strong majority sees an accumulation of problems—from uncaring healthcare to gross economic inequality, from global warming to globalization—that require profound government response. And in the aftermath of a botched war in Iraq and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina, they want a government that is effective, honest and open.
Further along, this article has been the most helpful in terms of laying out a particular way to gain momentum on a better health system, not because of David Moberg but because of David Moberg's paraphrasing of brilliant political linguist George Lakoff, Lakoff's paraphrased ideas, which I, in bulleted form, will quote here:
"[Despite our innate distrusts of government,] Americans want government that will both protect and empower them, says George Lakoff... He says that a democratic government is based on empathy and caring for each other."
"Lakoff says progressives should argue that protecting people against the inevitable threats to their health is as important as protecting them against national security threats."
"Lakoff says that Democrats will fare better on health issues if they talk about guaranteeing care—not insurance or coverage. Lakoff, who argues that care should not be determined by the marketplace or private insurance companies, says that a government single-payer plan is conceptually correct but linguistically flawed. Instead he describes the progressive alternative as run by doctors and patients, who can choose what care they get and from whom, in order to cut through right wing fear-mongering about “socialized medicine” (the tag that Republicans will try to stick on any progressive reform, however modest)."
"Democrats, like Obama, often say that the best healthcare plan would be a single-payer plan, where everyone is guaranteed care and can decide with their doctors the care they need. But none of the leading candidates, including Obama, advocates it.
" “Why do so many leaders surrender in advance?” Lakoff asks. “It has to do with neoliberal thought. They’re not talking about the moral issues of care and empathy, but interests.” Democrats too often talk about the needs of children, veterans, the poor, or the middle class, not about a failure of the market or the moral mandate for government as a protector of the entire national community."
I hope the next President--of course, I go with assumption it will be a woman or a mixed black man--hires Lakoff as a key advisor and squeezes Jaba out the door already. Or just throw him off the balcony.
good article on healthcare (at least according to my own opinion of where healthcare should go: government-single-payer, scrap the insurance companies); though article barely favors one over the other
agreeing on Clinton's attack about Obama's flip-flopping on once supporting single-payer universal healthcare. It's meant to say Obama has retracted from his once-universal view; but the way I see this is if he once was straightforward for federal healthcare, then he's more likely than Clinton to eventually get there
So far, I know the most about Obama than the other two: know of anyone to add to this email who might have opinions/facts to add about them? Anything to add?:
John Edwards: Very inspiring, I'm all behind him and believe in him when he says as president, he will make, lead, and carry out all the policy movements to help the true middle class and poor. However, he will therefore create harsh division from the upper class and possibly upper-middle class. He will not initiate conversation that doesn't have to do with "lifting the middle class"; he will respond to other issues when forced to, but mostly steers it back to the middle class; it's like he's not even trying to run for president of the United States--just eventually wants a role as an effective champion of the middle class, like Al Gore with a special, broad, goal after the race.
Clinton: Competent. Experience. But yes, still tied to partisanship because --of her ties to funders: has she ever addressed campaign finance? She definitely does not speak against special interest influences the way Edwards does, and neither even the level of Obama. Obama and Edwards "doesn't take money from federal lobbyists, or PACs"; does Clinton? No, because she financed by drug companies, by oil, by Chinese, etc. --unfairly, her image to right-wingers: has she ever successfully built a coalition with conservatives? Yes, she has (such as cooperating with Republican on bills to help out veterans). In some cases, Will any Republican cooperate with her or will that be political suicide, since Republican base will revolt?
Obama: Does Obama still have strong industry ties, through loopholes, despite saying "No to federeal lobbyists, PACs"? Has shown in rhetoric, and sparsely but a little in action, that he can bring together people (legislators) from differing sides. Can imagine new solutions, new directions, shown in the way he's moved this entire country's primaries--left & right sides--towards "coalition," towards change from old partisanship. But has not shown competency of Clinton on day-to-day management: will a rookie, with the gift of inspiration and creativity, be a risk as the CEO/COO?
Welcome to FrogBulletin, where certain topics and issues will be followed here at length and tagged accordingly. If you have any links you think relevant and would like posted here, email the frog and they'll be posted; or feel free to leave comments!
Author of...
Abraham Young (aka "The Frog") is also the author of the upcoming pamphlet-book Humanity At Stake.
The projected publication date for this book is May 19th, 2008. For more info: www.HumanityAtStake.com
I stand by my government on this issue. 
I understand the disturbance has been organized by the Dalai Lama to target the Olympics 
