Tagged: china Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Jill 2:14 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: china,   

    Reid lets truth slip: Hu is a dictator 

    Sen. Reid would be a lot funnier if he weren’t in a position of power. But anyway:

    “I am going to go back to Washington and meet with the President of China. He is a dictator. [Did I say that out loud?] He can do a lot of things through the form of government they have. [Luckeee!] Maybe I shouldn’t have said dictator, but they have a different type of government then we have [not that there’s anything wrong with that], and that is an understatement [phew!],” Reid said in the interview.

    “So we have to work in the system we have [dammit], the best system ever devised to rule the affairs of men and women,”  Reid continued. “And one of the few ways we get things done, in fact the most important way we get things done, is through compromise. It’s not a bad word, and that is how we get things done.”

    D’oh!

    Talking about China must make the statist’s head spin. He can’t betray too much admiration, unless he’s Thomas Friedman, who lets the love flow freely from his pen.

    Exit question: Has Friedman been asked to the state dinner or will he have to pull a Salahi and walk on in without an invitation?

    Crossposted at P&P.

     
    • fuzislippers 2:18 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

      The “dictator” thing doesn’t really matter to me; the fact that he expresses admiration for a tyrant’s ability to “do a lot of things” gives me pause. The back peddling is just that, back peddling.

      • fuzislippers 2:19 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Oh, and I’m not crazy about the “rul[ing] the affairs of men and women” stuff, either. That is NOT the role of government. Not in our constitutional republic.

    • just a conservative girl 2:58 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

      And we are giving a dicator a state dinner why?

    • Jill 3:57 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Jay Nordlinger:

      “Let me get a little corny on you: America is a nation that’s supposed to stand for something — for freedom, and human dignity, above all. We’re not supposed to be like every other nation. We’re supposed to be exceptional. Different. A beacon unto man.

      I’m not a babe in the woods, and I understand the necessity of getting along in a wicked world. But we don’t have to abase ourselves as we are doing now. We should not be honoring the PRC boss. We should be honoring, and standing with, the men and women in the camps and the cells. Are we America? (Does this sort of talk make you gag?) What is America? What are we supposed to celebrate on the Fourth of July? Is it just an excuse for fireworks and a picnic?

      American honor has been stained this week. A degree of shame rests upon this nation. We should hope that the prisoners and the strugglers — who want nothing more than what you and I are damn lucky to have — forgive us.”

      Read the whole thing.
      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257501/stain-upon-american-honor-jay-nordlinger

    • Jill 4:17 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

    • pjMom 5:27 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

      “He can do a lot of things through the form of government they have.”

      Torture, starve, maim opponents. To say nothing of forcing civil debate, no?

    • Jill 6:07 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

      Politico has the guest list. Friedman is on it.
      http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47847.html

      • pjMom 6:26 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

        I wonder if he’ll get a thrill up his leg, too.

      • just a conservative girl 9:09 PM on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

        Isn’t that special?

        • zillaoftheresistance 3:49 PM on 01/20/2011 Permalink | Reply

          So sad, what this country has become. Do you think, even with a strong Republican POTUS, like even if Reagan himself came back in full heath, that there’s a way back from this? Do you think it will be possible to undo our ‘fundamental transformation’ two years from now? I’m asking because I’m not nearly as well educated as the rest of you, and because I’m worried. I was 8 years old when Reagan took office, I remember that it was BAD under Carter, but I’m pretty sure that where we are now is far worse.

          • Yukio Ngaby 6:01 PM on 01/20/2011 Permalink | Reply

            I don’t think it’s worse than Carter, it’s just different. I mean the economy could end up being worse in the long run, but it’s hard to say and a lot depends on the next couple of years and the 2012 elections. If ObamaCare is repealed, defunded, found to be un-Constitutional etc. then that would be a big help. The VAT, the Cap & Trade scheme, and massive “green energy” initiatives would be more monster hits, but those look dead for the most part. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have to go, but people are still avoiding the issue. And California and Illinois have to be allowed to correct themselves without fed bailouts, but that’s unlikely because both are big states with lots of Dem. voters, esp Ca.

            I think the US economy took a couple of real big punches under Obama, but it’s still standing. Japan (which has an especially strange economy), China and any European country would’ve toppled from these kind of hits. I think the US economy is resilient and will recover. I think the Salad Days of the ’80s and ’90s are going to be over for a while though. I could be wrong on that though.

            What do others think?

            • just a conservative girl 12:51 AM on 01/21/2011 Permalink | Reply

              I don’t remember a great deal about Carter. I do remember the gas lines, as my parents would grumble about them. The first vote I cast was for Reagan’s re-election. Those were good times for the most part. I didn’t hit a financial snag until Bush 41. These things come and go. But this has last longer and has been deeper than most.
              I am a believer in American Exceptionilsm and I do believe that enough people have woken up to the reality that the gravy train is over. We will survive. But there are going to some tough times for a while, and we have to accept that we all have to make tough choices and everyone will have to give up something to right our course.
              I am just hoping that enough people won’t be fooled by the move to the middle that Obama is making. He will be more left in a second term. Reagan was much more conservative in his second term than his first. You have no more elections to loose, you may as well push for the vision that you have. Obama will be no exception to that.

  • Jill 7:36 PM on 05/31/2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: china, , , girls   

    Defying China’s one-child policy 

    . . . one girl-child at a time. Fighting the power, and pulling a few strings:

    “There were some difficult times,” Mr Fu conceded. “We were chased around and we had to live like beggars. But I never thought about doing otherwise. I’m aware that many people do not want their daughters, but we have a decent respect for life. In China, we think that when you have a child it is like dropping a piece of your own body from you, and we never considered the other options,” he said.

    [. . .]

    “When they eventually found out I had seven daughters, they tried to tear down our house, but fortunately I have good connections: my uncle is the head of the village,” said Mr Fu. “They also wanted to fine me 600,000 yuan (£60,000). But I refused to pay them. Eventually they knocked down just a small part of my old house and I paid them 2,000 yuan,” he added.

    Mr Fu said that he knew several other people in his village who also had more than one child and that he had already encouraged his eldest daughter, who has recently born him a grandson, to continue to procreate. “I told her: no matter what the cost, she should have more kids,” he said.

    Mr. Fu isn’t the only one. If he were, there wouldn’t be an unexplained jump between the 1990 and 2000 census counts:

    Examining China’s census figures, Mr Liang came across discrepancies that proved the subterfuge. “In 1990, the national census recorded 23 million births. But by the 2000 census, there were 26 million ten-year-old children, an increase of three million,” he said. “Normally, you would expect there to be fewer ten-year-olds than newborns, because of infant mortality,” he added.

    His findings suggest that the one-child policy may not have the grim consequences that have been widely predicted.

    Let us pray that’s true. Read the rest.

    h/t: Hot Air headlines

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel