Jeikun

lol I mean it's not like they burned Mao in effigy or were throwing flaming darts at the Chinese flag or anything... it was childish, but not hateful I think. But to defend it like "how dare you be shocked, only an American or Brit would take it that way." and "They meant no harm" is completely numbskulled. I didn't mean harm when I did that gesture as a 8 year old kid either... but I was an 8 year old kid... these are adult athletes being invited to another country. "Cowboy hats" and "Sombreros" are clothing actually traditionally (and sometimes still) worn in America and Mexico. Nobody would have had a negative reaction if they were wearing a Chinese HAT. They were mocking a physical ethnic feature in a school-yard manner. I guess they think it would be acceptable to paint themselves up in blackface if they went to Africa? Spain... ha-ha.

Ha, I just read the article before I came to this site today. Interesting coincidence. I didn't take it as some reporter using the disaster as an excuse to attack the one-child policy. As others said, I took it as simply reporting on the tragedy of losing your only child, and that very many Chinese (by law) have only one child. Yes, there was an implication that the one-child policy can be a negative thing in the article, but I don't think shamefully so, or to the point of attacking it.

What they consider "level 4" Chinese is TOTAL fluency. Think Native speaker with at least a high school education. Comparitively, to be a linguist in the military, only "level 2" (minimal fluency) is required. "level 4+" would be like a native speaker with a graduate degree in the language. Pretty stiff requirement. To be level 4 in English and Mandarin would almost require someone who had grown up in a multinational family, or had spent a great many years fully immersed in and diligently studying their non-native language.

Much better than we do. Wow... tell us more!!

This lawsuit will go nowhere. And it shouldn't. "Hope they win"? you have to be kidding me! Yes let's live in a world where someone offended by a newscaster's or public figure's comments can sue for billions of dollars. We still have some semblance of free speech in this country. Are people's skins that thin? Is a perceived insult to your national pride worth a billion dollars? The person suing is showing they are more American than Chinese anyway, what is more American than thinking your feelings being hurt is worth a big payday. I'm not responsible for your tender feelings, and Cafferty isn't either even if he is a dunce.

Which country are you the dictator of again? Obviously he took Randy's suggestion and headed over to Home Despot. Personally I'm waiting for their Fuhror's Day Sale so I can use my 10% off coupon and get 12 months same as cash with my club card.

Now THAT was tongue-in-cheek

Making China "Americanized", will be a sure path to failure as a superpower. As soon as they have unions more powerful than the companies that produce products, and as soon as they have entitlement programs (like social security) that suck up wages and corporate profits at the expense of productivity, the sooner that China will be on the path to mediocrity. China's big advantage is it's productivity, as well as the education of it's youth. China has no debt, massive trade surplusses and so much cash, it can't find enough places to invest it. Still, China is investing heavily in it's infrastructure. But social engineering to make everyone equal is a sure path to failure. Someday, Chinese products will be the best in the world, then everyone will realize that China is the greatest superpower, not when they have more people getting handouts from the government. Let's not forget that the most efficient and productive form of government is quite possibly the dictatorship. So why don't we all found fascist countries? Why aren't people happy to live in Dictatorships? There is more to life than how rich and/or sucessful your country may be. Standard of living is equally important. Comparing the idea of workers rights, unions, etc to being "Americanized" is completely flawed. China has easily 3 times the people living in poverty as it does in the "middle class". Many people here compare China to the US during the 40's or 50's when we weren't lazy, had family values, and were growing as a country... aaah the good old days.... This is absolutely a false image and thinking of China this way only insures that you will NEVER understand it. Eunice's comments were not about massive social programs anyway, they were about the idea that when the success of China is more widespread, when the "dream" is accessible to anyone who just wants to work hard and applies themselves, then they will have true wealth. As it is now, China's wealth is largely in the hands of elites and government and a small middle class. The peasants are still pushing around the same piles of crap they have been for thousands of years. In China if you are born a farmer, that's pretty much it for you. You can move to a city and become an underpaid and exploited laborer, or maybe a hooker if you're a woman. What we think of as "poor and underprivelidged" in the US is a big joke really. I do agree with you somewhat that social engineering can be a dangerous path, however. But the level of power that workers have in China right now is so dismal, some amount of enpowerment would be a far cry from causing China's economy to go T.U. I should add my opinion is largely uneducated I'm no economist or expert of any kind. I just feel like many people fail to see just how bad many people in China have it, and just how unfairly that wealth is distributed, and how impossible it is for them to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" in China's current system.

Now THAT'S the post I wish I would've written. Bravo Jason! What's with us agreeing so much lately? haha

Now hold on just a minute, Somebody's got to keep a thumb on them,(like I do my wife ).If you dont they will get out of control. You ever see them all going for the bus door at the same time? I dont think they really care what anybody says about them. They dont care at all. They just remind me of watching The 700 Club or Pat Robertson or some such other creepy TV preachers. I love it when they have the whole government on TV sitting there rowed up in tables,each one with exactly the same bottle of water to his left,but you never see anyone drinking from those bottles. They probably use the same bottles of water at next years meeting. Of course any leaders will issue a statment objecting to one thing or another,just to let their people know "we've got your back",but really do you think they care what anybody says about them? Obviously someone cares: Cafferty's comments may have been a lot of things, but racist ain't one of 'em. That kind of rhetoric only serves to detract from what may be legitimate complaints IMHO. Agreed. They showed lack of understanding and painted China as the pseudo-enemy the media seems dead set to portray them as, it implied all of China's exports to the USA were all "crap", and other unfair exaggerations... but there was NOTHING racist in his remarks. I swear people almost WANT to feel discriminated against. I've noticed people who now that they have Chinese wives and in-laws now have become super-sensitive to any implied discrimination, almost as if after decades of being "the man" they are tickeled pink to be a minority by proxy so they can start complaining about the man getting down on them. Branding his comments as racist, and reacting with irrational anger detract from the real issue, as Dave said. They also prevent any real understanding because both sides just get mad. The truth is, SOME of the stuff imported from China IS crap. QUITE A FEW of the leaders, police, and elites in China ARE goons and thugs. But that isn't the whole truth, nor does it look at the underlying reasons, and by making such a broad statement it does nothing but make people angry and polarized. China deserves more respect than a statement like that delivers. But I think we can all agree, unless we live in happy fantasy land with the gumdrop leprechauns, that China does have major issues that need to be adressed. Not so much in China's relationship with the US, but in how they treat their own people (and I'm NOT talking about Tibet). A statement like that just makes misunderstanding among Americans, and makes the Chinese angry so they are actually less likely to pay attention to their own issues because he has taken the role of a "foreign threat". It's like how you can say bad things about a family member, but if someone else does you want to kick their ass. Someone looking down on your family makes you angry at them, and think about how much you love your family and forget about the things about it that you yourself don't like, and rush to defend your family - even if there is some truth to what they said, even if you may have said it to yourself before. So yeah, that guy was being an idiot and was catering to anti-China sentiment and fear of China as a superpower. But he wasn't being a racist. And while we are puffing up with righteous anger at his statements... let's also not forget the nugget of truth that they contain in the process. In the relationship between China and the USA we BOTH need to develop a lot of MUTUAL understanding.

The article doesn't change my opinion on the issue, but it definately reinforces my disdain for people who resort to sensationalism and stupid acts to try to draw attention to their issue, or take their frustrations out on innocents. Any thing like this always makes me think of PETA.

I was going to post this myself but I saw it here first. Mainstream media strikes again. It's freakin' embarrassing to be associated with these idiots on any level. The sky would fall if these comments had been made about Africans or Mexicans. I guess selective racism is selectively O.K. And some complain about Fox News?!!?!?!? It's not selective racism. It's selective hypocrisy. Those that complain the most about China's policies in tibet are the same ones that do all the sabre rattling about why we need to meddle in Iraq civil war. I know this topic is taboo, but I must comment... meddle in it? We caused it! It's a matter of having to lie in the bed you made if you ask me. Creating chaos in another country, then bugging out saying "it's their problem" is high hypocracy. And as for China demanding an apology? Puh-lease. They need a thicker skin, not an apology.

Wow. Didn't realize Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were hippies. http://www.greendaily.com/2008/02/09/green...oil-dependence/ World population is a little larger now than in Henry and Rudy's day, Dave. It's a damned poor allocation of resources to use food or feed as fuel when there are better alternatives. Right. But they were the first "dreamers" in the field of biofuels and hardly hippies, which was my point. And like many today, at least they were trying to do SOMETHING about the need for alternatives to non-renewable resources, which was my other point. This need some have to make derisive comments about those trying to do something instead of nothing just seems a little silly and sophmoric IMHO. I don't think that ethanol is "doing something". I think it is intentionally wasting money and time on something that the people that make the big decisions already know isn't going to work, but continue to do so anyway because of the money involved in the whole charade. So it isn't doing something... it is taking us in the wrong direction while delivering false promises. That is even worse than doing nothing in my book. You are being deceived. I didn't say ethanol was the right answer. In fact, I don't happen to think it is either. There are people trying to come up with answers in MANY different ways, not just ethanol. My use of the words "many" and "something" encompasses a lot of things, not just ethanol. But all these people working on or advocating various alternatives usually get lumped into one group and derisively labelled "tree-huggers" or "hippies" or the like by those who,for whatever reason, think that trying to improve the environment is a BAD thing to be sneered at. I don't know maybe they think god will provide for everyone so no need to do anything. Or that there's no problem to begin with so "Screw it, I'll drive my Hummer if I want and neener neener neener to the rest of you and the environment you rode in on." Does that sound like an unfair, oversimplified stereotype of the "anti-green" side? Maybe even silly and sophmoric? If so, maybe I've made my point a little clearer. I don't disagree with your point. But if you believe the situation is coming close to being dire, and something major needs to be done now then we have to look at solutions that can be put in place and take a large percentage of the load as quickly as possible. Unfortunately, many of those who most vocally demand we move towards energy independance and cleaner energy sources, are also vocally opposed to the tools we have at our disposal to make rapid progress to that end. I think that nuclear power, and expanded domestic drilling for petroleum, as well as expanding our refining capabilities would show the most progress in the shortest period of time. Greener and more long-term solutions can continue to be developed to take over in the long term. As far as vehicles and emissions, gas-electric hybrids such as the prius are more viable than the idea of switching to ethanol. Long term, a hydrogen-electric hybrid, or full electric vehicle could be the answer (though of course only one of many). I think many of those who desire greener energy and energy independance are wanting to skip past the immediate solutions, and use the solutions of 25 years in the future today... and it just isn't viable. End result is by and large nothing is changing and money is being wasted on a menagarie of theoretical models that will take longer to cause any improvement than we can afford to wait.

I first read a similar article in the 90's. Except it said something like "The century of the USA will give way to the millinnium of China". I've found it very interesting that many of those things are coming to pass. Nothing to be afraid of, as it is practically an inevitability, but something to adapt to so that we can at least remain #2

Wow. Didn't realize Henry Ford and Rudolph Diesel were hippies. http://www.greendaily.com/2008/02/09/green...oil-dependence/ World population is a little larger now than in Henry and Rudy's day, Dave. It's a damned poor allocation of resources to use food or feed as fuel when there are better alternatives. Right. But they were the first "dreamers" in the field of biofuels and hardly hippies, which was my point. And like many today, at least they were trying to do SOMETHING about the need for alternatives to non-renewable resources, which was my other point. This need some have to make derisive comments about those trying to do something instead of nothing just seems a little silly and sophmoric IMHO. I don't think that ethanol is "doing something". I think it is intentionally wasting money and time on something that the people that make the big decisions already know isn't going to work, but continue to do so anyway because of the money involved in the whole charade. So it isn't doing something... it is taking us in the wrong direction while delivering false promises. That is even worse than doing nothing in my book. You are being deceived.

Is it the book by Prof. Ma at Eastern China Normal University? I have met him several times, and has a funny story about a street vendor trying to sell him a pirated version of his book. He has over 20 books on the translation and meaning of the old poetry. Pearls of Tang and Song Poetry by Zhou Ji ISBN: 9787807402145 38 RMB Thanks, I often think that if I can understand the old folklore and old stories than I can start to understand a culture. Also if you can become truly fluent in the language, as language shapes thought almost as much as it is shaped by it. Either way, learning to use and understand the language as it was intended gives a blueprint for thought. I think you can consider yourself "there" from a linguistic standpoint when you can hear a joke in the native tongue (not physical humor) and you honestly find it funny. Also when you can make jokes or plays on words and have them laughed at by a native speaker (not the same as YOU being laughed at by same native speaker )

"Shen" seems much more suited to "god" and not "GOD". This same character (Éñ) is pronounced "kami" in Japanese. In Japanese, it is used to mean a powerful spirit or god, but not normally to speak of the Christian (monotheistic) god. The Japanese add "sama" (˜”) which is an honorific used to describe someone in a high position of authority whom you are subordinate to (sorry I don't know the Chinese pronunciation) when speaking of the Christian (or other monotheistic) god. So in the case of Japanese usage at least: Éñ = "a god", while Éñ˜” = "GOD". With that in mind, I would agree that the concept of "GOD" as we consider it was largly absent, and not part of the intended meaning of Éñ though it held close enough connotations that for the Japanese at least, modifying it to Éñ˜” became the best way to translate "GOD". I think the Roman, Nordic, or other pantheon's gods could fit better with Éñ. (Which perhaps makes it less of an east vs west issue than a polytheistic or druidic/pagan vs Monotheistic issue) I'm far from well educated on this matter, you just happened to have chosen one of the few characters I actually know something about

Fusion would be awesome if it could ever be developed to a point where it is safe and cost-effective, but the "fission is deadly" argument is bullcrap. Modern nuclear reactors are a FAR better option for us than coal. There are people who would try to convince the public that they are all a bunch of would-be chernobyls irradiating the countryside and burping out metric tons of deadly radioactive waste that can't be safely stored and poison the environment and mutate the wildlife... so much so that it's actually at the back of everyone's minds... but it is ludicrous and so overexagerated it's sad really. I've been on the site of the first privately owned reactor to be hooked into a public electric grid for 2 years. There are people who have worked here for 40 years. The average exposure per year is about 1/5 of what you get exposed to on a 6 hour flight on an airplane. No need to get into gruelling detail of course, but if you take a hard look at nuclear power comparitively... hard facts and not opinion columns you will see the boogeyman of nuclear power is about as real as the boogeyman that was under your bed when you were 5.

I'm not sure I would call having to sneak the torch through a back-route and hold a rushed closing ceremony to no one at the airport a "victory". At best I would call it a draw.

This whole ethanol business is going to be revealed in a couple of decades at most to have been something akin to shoving our money up a pig's ass, giving it a good slap and watching it run off. For all of the ethanol capable vehicles in California, how many ethanol stations are there? Two? Five? There sure aren't any in Northern California. Country wide only about 2% of those who own ethanol capable vehicles actually ever put ethanol in them. Who wins? Manufacturers. By making them dual-use they don't have to meet the MPG requirements of a gasoline only vehicle. It's cheaper for them. You aren't going to see vast fields of sugarbeets, sawgrass, or Norwegian albino rutabegas stretching into the purple sunset and voodooing away our dependance on foreign oil in 10, 20, or 50,000 years. It's all smoke and mirrors, politics, and male bovine fecal material. It's popular with the public because at a glance it seems like a way to get what we want with no sacrifice on our parts. How often does that ever work?

Interesting that right now a bunch of morons are scaling the golden gate bridge and hanging giant banners that say "One World One Dream" "Free Tibet". I doubt they will still be there the day after tomorrow though. Hopefully those idiots will be in Jail in a couple of hours. Besides... if they believe in "One World" then wouldn't dividing a country be counter-productive to that goal?

Reminds me of touring one of those tunnels the North Koreans dug into South Korea under the Demilitarized zone. Very steep, very narrow, very claustrophobic... Big NO SMOKING signs... several old Korean guys puffing away... good luck banning smoking there. Since South Korea is a democracy, things will only change when as in the US the non-smokers begin to outnumber the smokers significantly and become fed up with it enough to demand rules be put into place. For the near future at least that's not the case.

Of course there were good intentions. Tons of them. That road to hell isn't gonna pave itself ya know!

Will they have built in loogie canals to direct the sputum safely to a drain of some sort, or will they still boast the oyster slicks of old?

Onesuite will give printouts as well. Your number and her number will be part of it. I used them almost exclusively way back when. Though the service rogerinca used sounds the same, and seems less expensive also.