Between laying retaining wall stones and pounding road-base flat with my Whacker, I took some time to watch the Utes game today. Lets just say, my guys are awesome! I loved watching them hand Michigan a thrashing. True, they only really played in the first half, and then checked out for some reason in the second, but they still held on to win over the winningest program in NCAA history, so that counts for something. I am thrilled that we still live in the mountain west, so we can still see Utah games on TV occasionally.
The other thing I want to talk about is my gripe. Dana and I just watched the movie Untraceable. Its a suspense thriller ala 'Seven', but without the good writing. And that is precisely my gripe. I cannot stand it when an otherwise intelligent movie uses stupid tactics or has people do asinine things to move the plot forward. In this movie, the savvy, super intelligent lead character is hot on the trail of some super-hacker/sociopath when he hijacks her car's computer through her OnStar system. Lights go out, engine kills, the whole nine yards. Mysteriously, the manual door lock is also put out of commission, so she has to break a window to get out.
Alright, up to this point the movie had been good. I actually felt a feeling of suspense. They had me. But then they turned Ms. Savvy von Detectivesky into a complete fool in one move. So she is out of her car making a call on an emergancy phone when suddenly the lights and all come back on in her car. Being the tough cop, she draws her weapon (which I can understand) and then walks back to her car (which, due to the car's vulnerability to electronic hyjinx seems like a very bad idea every way I look at it). She opens the door, the cab lights come on, and our plucky protagonist slides into the seat, looking for all the world like she is going to bo by some milk and bread. SHE DOES NOT CHECK THE BACK SEAT!!!
So, predictably, the bad guy rises up as soon as she puts the car in drive. He tasers her, which is his MO, and then drags her off to do unspeakable things to her, blah blah blah.
It completely ruined the movie for me. That is just lazy writing, right there. How am I supposed to feel compassion and interest in a protagonist who suddenly becomes stupid enough to win herself a Darwin award? Grrr.
Anyway, that is all. Carry On.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The DNC, or as I like to call it. . .
. . .the Destroy Normal Cities.
So the DNC, or (Democratic National Convention, if you are so inclined) is in town. Denver, that is. It used to be a normal little city, but all of a sudden we have riot police wearing black uniforms and carrying shields all over the place. You can't go to a park anywhere near downtown without seeing a cop somewhere around. We have all sorts of cops right now. Cops on foot, cops on horses, cops with tasers, cops with assault rifles, cops with tear gas grenade launchers, cops standing on cars, and then we still have your run of the mill cops in doughnut shops.
Where do all these police come from? I am sure there are a few towns in the midwest somewhere that are in a complete state of anarchy because their peace-keepers have all come to Denver for the week. The thing that gets me is, no matter how hard I strain my noodle about this, I just can't make sense of it.
Why on earth should a political party get to hijack an otherwise peaceful metropolis just so they can celebrate themselves? How is it justifyable that any group of people should be able to lay claim to millions of dollars of tax-payer money and cause traffic jams and civil unrest just to pat itself on the back? It makes no sense to me.
I am trying to imagine what would happen if all the mormons in America got together for a convention. Would the government give us millions of dollars to help fund our little shin-dig? I doubt it. What if we caused enough civil unrest that people showed up to protest us? Would uncle Sam lend us hundreds of his bravest and finest? More likely they would show up to arrest us for disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. What if we caused major traffic snarls? Would they love us and put us on TV non-stop? More likely they would fine us millions of dollars.
So why are the parties so special? What do they do beyond polarize the nation and maintain their own power? I mean seriously, both parties exist merely to maintain their own existence. They do no real good for anyone. Right now, the Democrats are doing serious harm to Denver.
And why? So Barack can tell the world that he is going to run for President? Umm. . . didn't he already do that? And wouldn't an appearance on the Tonight Show do the job better anyway, with less riot gear? Its bonkers, if you ask me.
And then there is the money issue. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going down the drain for this little bash. I heard it estimated that the dems are going to drop 20 million on alcohol alone while they are here. Are you kidding me? 20 million dollars for our already ineffectual representatives to become even LESS lucid? Are we serious here? Isn't there an orphanage somewhere that needs clothes for the kiddies? Isn't there at least one homeless person in this country who could use a leg up? Do we honestly have nothing better to do with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS than to throw a party for people, so they can feel good about themselves and spend a week making ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE OR CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY!!!
OK, my blood pressure is getting dangerously high, so I am signing off. Plus, I have 200 traffic jams and a legion of police to navigate before I get home.
So the DNC, or (Democratic National Convention, if you are so inclined) is in town. Denver, that is. It used to be a normal little city, but all of a sudden we have riot police wearing black uniforms and carrying shields all over the place. You can't go to a park anywhere near downtown without seeing a cop somewhere around. We have all sorts of cops right now. Cops on foot, cops on horses, cops with tasers, cops with assault rifles, cops with tear gas grenade launchers, cops standing on cars, and then we still have your run of the mill cops in doughnut shops.
Where do all these police come from? I am sure there are a few towns in the midwest somewhere that are in a complete state of anarchy because their peace-keepers have all come to Denver for the week. The thing that gets me is, no matter how hard I strain my noodle about this, I just can't make sense of it.
Why on earth should a political party get to hijack an otherwise peaceful metropolis just so they can celebrate themselves? How is it justifyable that any group of people should be able to lay claim to millions of dollars of tax-payer money and cause traffic jams and civil unrest just to pat itself on the back? It makes no sense to me.
I am trying to imagine what would happen if all the mormons in America got together for a convention. Would the government give us millions of dollars to help fund our little shin-dig? I doubt it. What if we caused enough civil unrest that people showed up to protest us? Would uncle Sam lend us hundreds of his bravest and finest? More likely they would show up to arrest us for disturbing the peace or inciting a riot. What if we caused major traffic snarls? Would they love us and put us on TV non-stop? More likely they would fine us millions of dollars.
So why are the parties so special? What do they do beyond polarize the nation and maintain their own power? I mean seriously, both parties exist merely to maintain their own existence. They do no real good for anyone. Right now, the Democrats are doing serious harm to Denver.
And why? So Barack can tell the world that he is going to run for President? Umm. . . didn't he already do that? And wouldn't an appearance on the Tonight Show do the job better anyway, with less riot gear? Its bonkers, if you ask me.
And then there is the money issue. Hundreds of millions of dollars are going down the drain for this little bash. I heard it estimated that the dems are going to drop 20 million on alcohol alone while they are here. Are you kidding me? 20 million dollars for our already ineffectual representatives to become even LESS lucid? Are we serious here? Isn't there an orphanage somewhere that needs clothes for the kiddies? Isn't there at least one homeless person in this country who could use a leg up? Do we honestly have nothing better to do with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS than to throw a party for people, so they can feel good about themselves and spend a week making ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE OR CONTRIBUTION TO SOCIETY!!!
OK, my blood pressure is getting dangerously high, so I am signing off. Plus, I have 200 traffic jams and a legion of police to navigate before I get home.
Friday, August 8, 2008
USA! USA! USA!
Just wanted to mention again that I am jazzed for the Olympics. That is all. Carry on.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Shameless Self-Promotion
No, that is not what I am going to rant about. Rather, it is what I am about to do.
Not promoting myself, per se, but rather promoting what I do.
This blog is all about adoption. Just because it is an 8 letter word, doesn't mean it is a bad as two 4 letter words put together. Why are people so afraid of it?
Dana and I were watching TV last night, and Dana was jumping between two programs. One of them was the Baby Borrowers: Lessons Learned. It was like After the Catch from Discovery Channel, but without the good editing or wit.
Anyway, Dana has been following this show off and on. The premise is they take a bunch of teenage couples and throw them into parenting situations with babies of different ages, from newborns to teenagers, and even the elderly. The whole idea is that, once they see what raising a kid is like, they will be less likely to have one of their own until they are ready.
My jury is still out about the soundness of the idea, but whatever. The thing that I noticed about this whole program, which centered on the concept of teen pregnancy, was that adoption was mentioned only once, and it came out in the same sentence as abortion. It was like this: "When you found out that you were pregnant, did you ever think of other options, like adoption or abortion?"
Give me a break! Adoption is giving a child the best of all possible worlds. Abortion is giving a child no world at all. How are these two things similar?
Alright, I know I am biased, since I am an adoption worker, but it makes me sick that this whole television program about teen pregnancy did not mention adoption more often. It was like it is a foregone conclusion that a pregnant teenager has to keep her baby, even if it is the very worst thing for her and her child. I will never ever understand that thinking. A teenager who is having sex is being irresponsible. Keeping the child is just one further irresponsible thing.
Many people will not agree with me, and I understand that. Many people think a teenage mother should have to raise her child so that she learns to deal with the consequences of her actions. But isn't putting an entire human life at risk a bit of a hefty price for an object lesson? I think it is.
The reality of adoption is that the young girls and young women who place their children for adoption are being infinitely more responsible and less selfish than the majority of girls who keep their babies. Those who place are using the love they feel for their child to motivate them to give the child the kind of home it deserves, where the child can grow into its ultimate potential. Placing a child for adoption is the single hardest thing that any of the birthmoms I have worked with have ever done. Yet they do it in the best interests of the child. Where is the selfishness in that? The mothers are involved in finding a good, strong family for their baby. Where is the irresponsibility in that?
The world I guess just does not understand adoption. Either that, or most of the world is too selfish to see the world through the eyes of a birth-mom. Once the baby is born, the story is no longer about the mom. Mom can fend for herself. When the baby is born, the story has to be about what is best for the child.
One other argument is that single moms can be great moms. Absolutely. However, before you make that argument against adoption again, ask yourself two questions: If I could go back in time and be raised by a single mother, would I want to? and If I had a child right now, would I ever, ever give it to a 16 year old girl to raise? If you answer no to either of those questions, then you, like me, are probably a bigger fan of adoption than you thought you were.
It took me a while before I truly saw the beauty and power of adoption. Now that I know, I wish the whole world knew. Most of all, I wish that the miracle of adoption would never again be mentioned in the same sentence as the tragedy of abortion.
Not promoting myself, per se, but rather promoting what I do.
This blog is all about adoption. Just because it is an 8 letter word, doesn't mean it is a bad as two 4 letter words put together. Why are people so afraid of it?
Dana and I were watching TV last night, and Dana was jumping between two programs. One of them was the Baby Borrowers: Lessons Learned. It was like After the Catch from Discovery Channel, but without the good editing or wit.
Anyway, Dana has been following this show off and on. The premise is they take a bunch of teenage couples and throw them into parenting situations with babies of different ages, from newborns to teenagers, and even the elderly. The whole idea is that, once they see what raising a kid is like, they will be less likely to have one of their own until they are ready.
My jury is still out about the soundness of the idea, but whatever. The thing that I noticed about this whole program, which centered on the concept of teen pregnancy, was that adoption was mentioned only once, and it came out in the same sentence as abortion. It was like this: "When you found out that you were pregnant, did you ever think of other options, like adoption or abortion?"
Give me a break! Adoption is giving a child the best of all possible worlds. Abortion is giving a child no world at all. How are these two things similar?
Alright, I know I am biased, since I am an adoption worker, but it makes me sick that this whole television program about teen pregnancy did not mention adoption more often. It was like it is a foregone conclusion that a pregnant teenager has to keep her baby, even if it is the very worst thing for her and her child. I will never ever understand that thinking. A teenager who is having sex is being irresponsible. Keeping the child is just one further irresponsible thing.
Many people will not agree with me, and I understand that. Many people think a teenage mother should have to raise her child so that she learns to deal with the consequences of her actions. But isn't putting an entire human life at risk a bit of a hefty price for an object lesson? I think it is.
The reality of adoption is that the young girls and young women who place their children for adoption are being infinitely more responsible and less selfish than the majority of girls who keep their babies. Those who place are using the love they feel for their child to motivate them to give the child the kind of home it deserves, where the child can grow into its ultimate potential. Placing a child for adoption is the single hardest thing that any of the birthmoms I have worked with have ever done. Yet they do it in the best interests of the child. Where is the selfishness in that? The mothers are involved in finding a good, strong family for their baby. Where is the irresponsibility in that?
The world I guess just does not understand adoption. Either that, or most of the world is too selfish to see the world through the eyes of a birth-mom. Once the baby is born, the story is no longer about the mom. Mom can fend for herself. When the baby is born, the story has to be about what is best for the child.
One other argument is that single moms can be great moms. Absolutely. However, before you make that argument against adoption again, ask yourself two questions: If I could go back in time and be raised by a single mother, would I want to? and If I had a child right now, would I ever, ever give it to a 16 year old girl to raise? If you answer no to either of those questions, then you, like me, are probably a bigger fan of adoption than you thought you were.
It took me a while before I truly saw the beauty and power of adoption. Now that I know, I wish the whole world knew. Most of all, I wish that the miracle of adoption would never again be mentioned in the same sentence as the tragedy of abortion.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
No, my Blog Template is Not a Statement About My Politics
. . . but I am going green. Or greenER. Lets call it yellow.
So I was just reading over some of my last posts (vanity, you know) and I realized something - white print on a black background looks cool at first, but after a while it starts messing with your eyes. As I tend to be long-winded (or long-blogged), this really started to bug the crap out of me after one or two entries.
So, this is a thanks to people for putting up with the harsh (albeit awesome-looking) color scheme without complaining. Hopefully the new duds will be easier on the eyes.
And because I feel a lot like ranting today, here's a two-fer. Umm. . . lets pick: Yuppy Greenness.
Its a term I invented myself. 5 seconds ago. Let me explain - no, no, there is too much. Let me sum up: Yuppy Greens are people who like to pretend they are green, but are unwilling to change their lifestyle in significant ways. These are the housewives who drive 20 miles in their Ford Monstrosity, V8, 400 horsepower land-mover, while drinking over-priced imported coffee in a disposable cup, to buy the cute little, popular, curly 'eco-friendly' compact flourescent light bulbs at Wal-Mart, and who then go home and proceed to leave the lights on in every room in the house all night because it helps them feel safe.
Yuppy Greens are the bane of actual greens, who are taking pains to reduce their carbon footprint, shop with cloth shopping bags, separate their own recyclables, and once in a rare while actually go out and enjoy the environment. Yuppy Greens have made eco-conscious behavior a trend. The latest fad, like skinny pants. Their hearts aren't in it, but they like 'seeming' to be green.
The cold hard truth is that Americans don't want to be green. We don't like to ride our bicycles. Bikes are for junior high kids. We don't even like driving scooters or small cars. We like big, powerful things. We don't do terribly well in the planning department, because everything has been 'convenienced' so that we don't have to think ahead. We don't have to bring bags to the store, because the store has bags for us. We don't have to bring refillable mugs, because the store has cups for us. We don't have to use anything durable and reusable, because a disposable one will be provided for us.
Going green in a meaningful way will mean a complete shift in the way we think about our world, most importantly the way we think about our usage of energy. The wastefullness that is stuck in my craw right now has to do with the inefficiency of cars. Cars are horribly wasteful, even hybrids and electric cars. Here is what I mean -
My car weighs 4435 pounds empty. I weigh in at roughly 230, depending on if I am hungry or not. When I am in the car, the whole package weighs 4665. So, when I am driving around, using up .037 gallons per mile, the weight of the vehicle is only 5% me. Only 5 percent! That makes me want to hit Elmo! (OK, so a lot of things make me want to hit Elmo, including Elmo himself, but that is another rant)
So lets do a little math here. Recently I am paying $4 a gallon for gas. Ok, so 5% of that $4 goes to moving me. That works out to be roughly 20 cents a gallon is spent on MYSELF, while $3.80 is spent on MY CAR. I am paying 19 times more to move the thing that should be moving me than I am paying to move myself! That is so backwards!
Sure, the 2 tons of steel keep me safe. That is the usual argument used. Safety. Well, I don't buy it. If all the cars out their weigh, lets say, 400 pounds, like a typical ATV. Well, if I only have less than 1000 pounds of vehicle and driver careening my way, I don't need 2 tons of steel to keep me safe, then, do I? No. I need more along the line of - hey! - 400 pounds of steel!
Its the same phenomenon of two people running into each-other. If they are both going full steam, they will wipe out and scrape their knees or whatever. However, since their bodies are roughly similar in mass, they don't do any terrible damage to one-another. They mostly bounce off each-other since the transfer of energy is so close to even.
Alright, so we should be able to transfer that same concept to vehicles, right? If we all drove light cars, there would be no extra safety concern. Crashes would still be lethal as a function of velocity, but no more than they are right now.
OK, so what I am getting at here is I want a light-weight, stable, elementally protected people mover that does not out-weigh me by more than 2 tons. I would go for one that just outweighed me by 100%. How cool would that be: a car that I would dead-lift. I would be all over that. "Hey honey, could you hold the car up while I change the tire?" That would be sweet!
I know people are working on this exact idea, but I never hear about it unless I go looking for it. I hear all about the Honda Metropolitan, which gets over 100 mpg. But its a scooter, and I can't drive it over 30 mph. I want a stable, climate controlled vehicle that has four wheels and is not a death-trap at high speeds. Most of all, I want to pay to move myself around, not pay to move my self-mover around.
So I was just reading over some of my last posts (vanity, you know) and I realized something - white print on a black background looks cool at first, but after a while it starts messing with your eyes. As I tend to be long-winded (or long-blogged), this really started to bug the crap out of me after one or two entries.
So, this is a thanks to people for putting up with the harsh (albeit awesome-looking) color scheme without complaining. Hopefully the new duds will be easier on the eyes.
And because I feel a lot like ranting today, here's a two-fer. Umm. . . lets pick: Yuppy Greenness.
Its a term I invented myself. 5 seconds ago. Let me explain - no, no, there is too much. Let me sum up: Yuppy Greens are people who like to pretend they are green, but are unwilling to change their lifestyle in significant ways. These are the housewives who drive 20 miles in their Ford Monstrosity, V8, 400 horsepower land-mover, while drinking over-priced imported coffee in a disposable cup, to buy the cute little, popular, curly 'eco-friendly' compact flourescent light bulbs at Wal-Mart, and who then go home and proceed to leave the lights on in every room in the house all night because it helps them feel safe.
Yuppy Greens are the bane of actual greens, who are taking pains to reduce their carbon footprint, shop with cloth shopping bags, separate their own recyclables, and once in a rare while actually go out and enjoy the environment. Yuppy Greens have made eco-conscious behavior a trend. The latest fad, like skinny pants. Their hearts aren't in it, but they like 'seeming' to be green.
The cold hard truth is that Americans don't want to be green. We don't like to ride our bicycles. Bikes are for junior high kids. We don't even like driving scooters or small cars. We like big, powerful things. We don't do terribly well in the planning department, because everything has been 'convenienced' so that we don't have to think ahead. We don't have to bring bags to the store, because the store has bags for us. We don't have to bring refillable mugs, because the store has cups for us. We don't have to use anything durable and reusable, because a disposable one will be provided for us.
Going green in a meaningful way will mean a complete shift in the way we think about our world, most importantly the way we think about our usage of energy. The wastefullness that is stuck in my craw right now has to do with the inefficiency of cars. Cars are horribly wasteful, even hybrids and electric cars. Here is what I mean -
My car weighs 4435 pounds empty. I weigh in at roughly 230, depending on if I am hungry or not. When I am in the car, the whole package weighs 4665. So, when I am driving around, using up .037 gallons per mile, the weight of the vehicle is only 5% me. Only 5 percent! That makes me want to hit Elmo! (OK, so a lot of things make me want to hit Elmo, including Elmo himself, but that is another rant)
So lets do a little math here. Recently I am paying $4 a gallon for gas. Ok, so 5% of that $4 goes to moving me. That works out to be roughly 20 cents a gallon is spent on MYSELF, while $3.80 is spent on MY CAR. I am paying 19 times more to move the thing that should be moving me than I am paying to move myself! That is so backwards!
Sure, the 2 tons of steel keep me safe. That is the usual argument used. Safety. Well, I don't buy it. If all the cars out their weigh, lets say, 400 pounds, like a typical ATV. Well, if I only have less than 1000 pounds of vehicle and driver careening my way, I don't need 2 tons of steel to keep me safe, then, do I? No. I need more along the line of - hey! - 400 pounds of steel!
Its the same phenomenon of two people running into each-other. If they are both going full steam, they will wipe out and scrape their knees or whatever. However, since their bodies are roughly similar in mass, they don't do any terrible damage to one-another. They mostly bounce off each-other since the transfer of energy is so close to even.
Alright, so we should be able to transfer that same concept to vehicles, right? If we all drove light cars, there would be no extra safety concern. Crashes would still be lethal as a function of velocity, but no more than they are right now.
OK, so what I am getting at here is I want a light-weight, stable, elementally protected people mover that does not out-weigh me by more than 2 tons. I would go for one that just outweighed me by 100%. How cool would that be: a car that I would dead-lift. I would be all over that. "Hey honey, could you hold the car up while I change the tire?" That would be sweet!
I know people are working on this exact idea, but I never hear about it unless I go looking for it. I hear all about the Honda Metropolitan, which gets over 100 mpg. But its a scooter, and I can't drive it over 30 mph. I want a stable, climate controlled vehicle that has four wheels and is not a death-trap at high speeds. Most of all, I want to pay to move myself around, not pay to move my self-mover around.
Olympics and Other Strenuous Nonsense
OK, so the Olympics are coming up. I am very excited. I was a volunteer at the 2002 winter olympics, and it kinda got in my blood. Plus, America wins the medal count every time, so I have good reason to be optimistic.
The fact that the Olympics, or the 'Limpics' as I call them (Sometimes just 'Limpees' for short) are in China this go-round just makes things that much more interesting. By interesting I mean rant-worthy.
Cut to the rant: I am somewhat more familliar with the vagaries of communism than your average American. I happen to be married to a recovering communist. Due to this familiarity, I have come to learn that a communist government is a system that exists virtually exclusively to perpetuate itself, at the cost of its own people. Now, as I re-read what I just wrote, I realise that this could basically describe any political system, but communism perpetuates itself at an especially high cost to the prosperity and liberties of its people, and then keeps its people from complaining about the cost. In my book, a system that disallows dissidence is a weak system. The ability to abide dissent is proof of an internally strong, justified government.
What does this have to do with the Limpees? Well, China is trying to play its whole Two Systems foolery to the full-out extent. They invite the whole world to come and play, then they get angry when the world wants to play according to its own rules. You can't seriously invite American atheletes into China and expect them to stop thinking like Americans, can you?
Obviously, that is precisely what China is doing. Check out just this one story, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/beijing/2008-08-06-cheek-visa-revoked_N.htm
For those of you too hurried or lazy to read the article, the gyst is this: Joey Cheek, a winter olympian, was going to go to China to support his warmer-climate-cohorts, but the Chinese denied him a visa. Why? Because he is a cofounder of the ideological group Team Darfur, which is a group of 100+ olympians who have declared their support for Darfur and, by extension, their opposition to the Sudanese government. Well, China doesn't like this, since they are buddy-buddy with Sudan (that's were they get their oil. Why does everyone go stupid for oil? Oil is the devil's blood, me thinks). So the Chinese government turns around and denies Joey a visa to even enter their country. Give me a break. If they would have just let him in he would not have made such a stink and would have likely gone mostly un-noticed, but now he is showing up in major publications, such as this blog and USA Today.
Anyway, I love what the US Olympic team turned around and did on the same day as Joey was denied his visa. They named Lopez Lomong the banner carrier, who himself is a Darfur refugee! Take THAT communist censorship! There is no way the Chinese would risk the embarassment (then again, they might. . .) of shipping our FLAG BEARER home, so this man, this living, breathing proof of the attrocities going on in Darfur, is going to be on billions of televisions as he walks beneath the Stars and Stripes in opening and closing ceremonies. I am laughing myself to the hiccups over here! I love poetic justice like this. Nowhere like the Olympics do countries get such an open stage to express themselves. It is completely sweet that China is not getting its way in trying to make this a non-issue. Bravo to the US Olympic team for picking a man who represents so well what America is (or should be) about - a place where people are free to pursue their dreams regardless of their background, and where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisals.
I predicted months ago that the Chinese Olympics would be fraught with protests, especially people protesting Chinese foreign policies like the annexation of Tibet and the friendly relationship with Sudan. With all of the world tuning in, how could the strong passions of so many people possibly NOT be expressed. I hope everything goes peacefully and that the games are a success, but I also hope they are a failure. I hope they are a failure for Communist China's attempt to invite the world to honor them, but in turn to dishonor the world by disallowing the world's oppinions.
Sorry, China. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
The fact that the Olympics, or the 'Limpics' as I call them (Sometimes just 'Limpees' for short) are in China this go-round just makes things that much more interesting. By interesting I mean rant-worthy.
Cut to the rant: I am somewhat more familliar with the vagaries of communism than your average American. I happen to be married to a recovering communist. Due to this familiarity, I have come to learn that a communist government is a system that exists virtually exclusively to perpetuate itself, at the cost of its own people. Now, as I re-read what I just wrote, I realise that this could basically describe any political system, but communism perpetuates itself at an especially high cost to the prosperity and liberties of its people, and then keeps its people from complaining about the cost. In my book, a system that disallows dissidence is a weak system. The ability to abide dissent is proof of an internally strong, justified government.
What does this have to do with the Limpees? Well, China is trying to play its whole Two Systems foolery to the full-out extent. They invite the whole world to come and play, then they get angry when the world wants to play according to its own rules. You can't seriously invite American atheletes into China and expect them to stop thinking like Americans, can you?
Obviously, that is precisely what China is doing. Check out just this one story, for example: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/beijing/2008-08-06-cheek-visa-revoked_N.htm
For those of you too hurried or lazy to read the article, the gyst is this: Joey Cheek, a winter olympian, was going to go to China to support his warmer-climate-cohorts, but the Chinese denied him a visa. Why? Because he is a cofounder of the ideological group Team Darfur, which is a group of 100+ olympians who have declared their support for Darfur and, by extension, their opposition to the Sudanese government. Well, China doesn't like this, since they are buddy-buddy with Sudan (that's were they get their oil. Why does everyone go stupid for oil? Oil is the devil's blood, me thinks). So the Chinese government turns around and denies Joey a visa to even enter their country. Give me a break. If they would have just let him in he would not have made such a stink and would have likely gone mostly un-noticed, but now he is showing up in major publications, such as this blog and USA Today.
Anyway, I love what the US Olympic team turned around and did on the same day as Joey was denied his visa. They named Lopez Lomong the banner carrier, who himself is a Darfur refugee! Take THAT communist censorship! There is no way the Chinese would risk the embarassment (then again, they might. . .) of shipping our FLAG BEARER home, so this man, this living, breathing proof of the attrocities going on in Darfur, is going to be on billions of televisions as he walks beneath the Stars and Stripes in opening and closing ceremonies. I am laughing myself to the hiccups over here! I love poetic justice like this. Nowhere like the Olympics do countries get such an open stage to express themselves. It is completely sweet that China is not getting its way in trying to make this a non-issue. Bravo to the US Olympic team for picking a man who represents so well what America is (or should be) about - a place where people are free to pursue their dreams regardless of their background, and where they can speak their minds without fear of reprisals.
I predicted months ago that the Chinese Olympics would be fraught with protests, especially people protesting Chinese foreign policies like the annexation of Tibet and the friendly relationship with Sudan. With all of the world tuning in, how could the strong passions of so many people possibly NOT be expressed. I hope everything goes peacefully and that the games are a success, but I also hope they are a failure. I hope they are a failure for Communist China's attempt to invite the world to honor them, but in turn to dishonor the world by disallowing the world's oppinions.
Sorry, China. You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)