As the people of China celebrate the 60th birthday of the PRC with martial displays -- entirely appropriate considering the death toll of that government over the years -- the Empire State Building, in a burst of insanity, has decided to turn the building yellow and red in "celebration" of Mao's murderous regime:Wednesday night in New York City, the Empire State Building will illumine its familiar spire with red and yellow lights in honor of Communist China. The Communism-themed color scheme will stay lit through Thursday night, much to the delight of China's consular officials, who were on hand for a ceremony in the lobby of the iconic building Wednesday morning, and to the acute dismay of the dozen or so protesters outside, and to many Americans who question whether honoring China's Communist revolution here is at all appropriate.I've got an idea -- after the Empire State building is done being red and yellow for China, maybe they can turn it green, white, and red for the Columbo crime family!
___________
Daily Links:
- An antidote for the Empire State Building's nonsense, view this lovely video of sky cam Taiwan.
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!
22 comments:
That should fairly well cement the idea that Obama is a Commie Pinko in the Tea-Baggers' minds.
Where are all those loudmouths who were complaining about Gaddhafi pitching his tent in New Jersey...then New York, then the Libyan leader pretty much wasn't allowed in any apartment, house or hotel during the UN General Assembly events. Those loudmouths spoke loud then. But they always welcome Communist China with open arms. The Empire State Building for Yod's Steak!
How bout red, white and blue to celebrate the worlds only superpower and all the misery and death they've caused? :)
How bout red, white and blue to celebrate the worlds only superpower and all the misery and death they've caused? :)
Good idea. It would great if both countries gave up their colonial projects in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. But China seems to lack the maturity to produce a strong and loud constituency for doing the right thing. Why do you think that is?
Well, the Empire State Building isn't directly affiliated with the US Government I guess?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/01/content_12150175.htm
5 colon marching
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-10/01/content_12150589.htm
Where are all those loudmouths who were complaining about Gaddhafi pitching his tent in New Jersey...then New York, then the Libyan leader pretty much wasn't allowed in any apartment, house or hotel during the UN General Assembly events.
I read "the Corner" at the National Review, a very conservative blog made up of editors and writers for the magazine. See here, here, here, here, here, here and here for their loudmouth complaining. They do complain about China's abuse of human rights in China. Sadly, they seem unwilling to confront China's aggressive behavior toward Taiwan.
all i can say is those business people certainly know how to kiss some serious ass.
But China seems to lack the maturity to produce a strong and loud constituency for doing the right thing. Why do you think that is?
The US do? To be clear, Mao is a bad bad person and killed many innocent people. However, the number ONE murderous regime in the entire human history is a country think it is civilized and gentlemanly. Under her rules, it was estimated more innocent people was killed than Hitler, Stalin, and Mao combine, that's not even counting people her empire enslaved.
Isn't there is a discussion on how "privilege" in Chinese society made Chinese unfit for democracy? I should hope there was an article somewhere 150 year ago talk about how enslaving 30% of a country's population makes the great USA unfit for democracy.
US seems to also lack the maturity to produce a strong and loud constituency for doing the right thing. Hell, where is the objection when Bush invaded Iraq?
Once again, the DPP demonstrates its strong commitment to press freedom by lambasting Taiwanese television stations for covering the PRC's national day parade. Yesterday, the DPP, through its spokesperson 趙天麟, said Taiwan's media should exercise self censorship when covering such events.
Thank goodness the DPP has no power and can only complain about the media rather than try to shut down and arrest Taiwanese media figures it disagrees with. Remember back in 2002 when the DPP's security chief Chen Ding-nan ransacked the offices and private residences of Next magazine staff to intimidate them into silence?
"I should hope there was an article somewhere 150 year ago talk about how enslaving 30% of a country's population makes the great USA unfit for democracy."
It is a common tactic of Pandapologists like Arty to refer to a past shameful event in the history of Country X in order to justify or mitigate the shame of the oppression of China. Of course, it is inconvenient for Pandapologists to note the fact that, in the mid nineteenth century, there were many very salient critiques of slavery both within the US and in Europe. These critiques were protected by law (on the contrary, try openly criticizing the peculiar institutions of China within China), and the non-slave side did carry the day, which could be called a large victory for the very American ideals that he is denigrating.
It is also inconvenient for Pandapologists such as Arty to recognize that the anti-slavery movement of the nineteenth century, the women's lib movement of the nineteenth and twentieth, and the civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth all took place in a country that knows how to come to terms, albeit slowly, with the darker elements of its past.
Of course, the partisan of a country such as China, which prefers to dwell in its past and deflect criticism of its failings instead of owning up to them, couldn't be expected to understand how Americans would find the glorification of a country which can not own up to its mistakes despicable.
And even if this were not true, the point would still remain that the sins of A do not justify the sins of B. And the fact that Pandapologist Arty felt he had to come up with some sort of (poor) justification to the glorification of a murderous regime shows, to a large extent, the fact that he recognizes that the regime in question is, indeed, murderous and very unworthy of glorification.
Thanks for proving the point of this post, Arty.
I note that in many such "discussions", the "discussion" turns into an argument over whose country did worse things.
Here is a very simple concept: an entity's evil action is not rendered less evil if another entity also commits evil, the same with good actions.
In terms that Anglophones may have heard before: two wrongs don't make a right.
...also, China is about as communist as my left shoe. Seriously, real communists get a terrible reputation due to all the totalitarian governments that claimed to be communist.
And even if this were not true, the point would still remain that the sins of A do not justify the sins of B. And the fact that Pandapologist Arty felt he had to come up with some sort of (poor) justification to the glorification of a murderous regime shows, to a large extent, the fact that he recognizes that the regime in question is, indeed, murderous and very unworthy of glorification.
I am simply wanting to point out that we are not much better either even TODAY. How many innocent Iraqs do we kill today. We could be as murderous as Iraq sees us. Unlike some people on this blog. Yet, we are judging others like we are high and mighty especially you are living in that country (region) cough cough. That's all.
Arty,
It is not a matter of the past evils of one entity not making a difference in others' evils. It's a matter of the evils of one entity not making a difference in others' evils, regardless.
If an evildoer condemns another evildoer, that does not make either of them less culpable -- which I think is part of the reason why people are so skittish about it, because there's this assumption that condemning other people makes onself better. It doesn't. Things work both ways: other people being evil doesn't make you any less evil.
Aside from the usual "Communist China" conservative Cold War catch phrase, Fox News actually filmed a local citizen who made a good comparison with lighting the Great Wall in red, white and blue on July 4.
Zhao Ziyang opposed his colleagues ordering the gunning down of peacefully-protesting fellow citizens; Barack Obama opposed going to war against Iraq. One consequently died under house arrest; the other was elected president. But, as Thomas ably pointed out, you ignore stuff like this; you promiscuously employ the fallacy of “cherry picking” when arguing.
Further, you’re making your cherry-picking efforts (as Aeode points out) here within the frame of another glaring fallacy: the “two wrongs make a right” argument (also known as “Tu quoque” [You, too”], a form of ad hominem argument).
These are very sub-par argument tactics, Arty; these are grade-school level fallacies. And I’m sure you’re not as dumb as your use of these fallacies makes you look. So assuming no one is putting a gun to your head and making you write this stuff, it’s highly likely that you’re simply dishonest. Whatever, until you argue more ably and honestly than this, your use of the pronoun “we” when talking about Americans strikes me as highly illegitimate. Plenty of Americans make an effort to be intellectually honest. You, in contrast, are among those Americans who don’t.
I can't wait to see what the Empire State Building is planning for Hitler's birthday...
It is not a matter of the past evils of one entity not making a difference in others' evils. It's a matter of the evils of one entity not making a difference in others' evils, regardless.
If an evildoer condemns another evildoer, that does not make either of them less culpable -- which I think is part of the reason why people are so skittish about it...
I agree with you on this. However, when someone uses word like "immature" to describe a nation, he/she is implying his/her country is more "mature" or there is some maturity somewhere (comparative term???). I can tell you this, no country will sit down and talk when it knows that it could gain more from smashing the weaker one (true for every single nation exist in this world; all countries behave like selfish little kids).
I also hate moral inconsistency. How could you even support Dalia Lama (a theocracy who talk nice now that all of them do without power) as an leftist? Kadeer is a tough call; however, isn't she someone's property according to some Sharia laws? Taiwan should refuse her Visa citing Sharia law (don't really care if she is associated with terrorist groups or not, because one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter). Btw, is there a single democracy found by theocracy or Islam for that matter?
Aoede wrote: Seriously, real communists get a terrible reputation due to all the totalitarian governments that claimed to be communist.
When you try to impose an economic system that requires people to behave in an unselfish manner so at odds with their selfish human nature, you have to gain a lot of control over individuals to direct their efforts toward the common good instead of their own enrichment. Do you think it is coincidence that such an economic system so often results in totalitarian government? And do you find it surprising that totalitarian governments end up being lead by the worst kinds of dictators - those who prize power above all human sympathies?
Good idea. It would great if both countries gave up their colonial projects in Xinjiang, Taiwan, Tibet, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.
What attacks against resulting in the deaths of thousands have been planned from Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang in the last 100 years? What evidence has their been that Taiwan, Tibet or Xinjiang have shielded international terrorists? What evidence do we have that Xinjian, Tibet, or Taiwan have been working on nuclear weapons that they might be willing to use on their neighbors or share with others - and in the light of any such evidence have these places attempted to refuse or delay international inspections demanded by many other countries?
Is there any evidence that the US plans to annex Iraq or Afghanistan the way China has annexed Tibet and Xinjiang and the way China would like to annex Taiwan?
There are legitimate reasons to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but equating them with China's imperial ambitions is intellectually incoherent.
"I can tell you this, no country will sit down and talk when it knows that it could gain more from smashing the weaker one..."
True, Arty, if no constituency within the country prevents this from happening. In other words, you're ignoring Michael's original point and then pompously "informing" others of something you incorrectly assume they don't know.
You don't hate moral inconsistency; you embody it. Kadeer and (strict) Sharia? Give me a break. East Turkestan of 1944 was a secular republic and the Uighurs are highly secular Muslims. And the Dalai Lama was instituting major reforms prior to the Chinese invasion in 1951.
If the Dalai Lama, supported by the vast majority of Tibetans both inside and outside of Tibet is to be condemned for heading an admitted theocracy rather than a republican form of government, then China should be condemned far more for its anti-democratic ways and for making a mockery of the term "Republic," no?
You're trying to use the term "democracy" here to disparage the principle of self-determination -- a "shifting the goalposts" fallacy you wouldn't let anyone get away with in a discussion about China. You evidence no hatred for the Chinese government’s extreme moral and definitional inconsistencies; with your silence on this, you tacitly support “self-determination” over democracy for Chinese (except for an ambiguous contrarian peep about Taiwan Echo’s views on Chinese affinity for democracy).
And you keep conflating what China does within her borders with (a) what the U.S has long stopped doing within her borders and (b) what the U.S. does outside her borders. No one here is denying that evil is evil; it’s this dreadfully-poor comparative analogizing that you’re being laughed at and derided for. And you cap it all off with narcissistic self-righteousness! Your continuing insistence on such stuff is an insult to all of us – Taiwanese, Chinese, American, Hottentot, whomever – as a species.
You're an agenda-driven, illogical hypocrite.
There are legitimate reasons to oppose the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but equating them with China's imperial ambitions is intellectually incoherent.
When dealing with the incoherent....
Post a Comment