NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090220/pl_afp/usdiplomacyasiachinarights

So, basically, the woman that made her crowd into a "vote-for-me-or-you're-against-women's-rights" mob is now showing herself not to give a damn about HUMAN rights, covering both genders.

Only caring about rights when it's about touting fake ones to try and steal an election. She then proceeds not to give a damn about ACTUAL rights. She wanted to have a right to be the one in the Democratic ticket regardless of the votes, but doesn't care about ACTUAL rights.

Really nice.

She also kicked a puppy.

Did Hilary come up with this idea by herself? Maybe Obama helped her. Then it would suggest Hilary and Obama are both scum politicians who campaign on civil rights sentiments but don't give a damn about human rights when they're in office.

Were this any other nation, I'd agree. But since when has browbeating China made any significant and constant progress in the human rights area? Taking care of the economic crisis is rather important at the moment and Clinton did not say human rights would never be an issue, just that it's not going to get anywhere with the Chinese at the moment and that fixing the economy is a more immediate problem.

Oh, and in before "Where's the Change, Sauron!?"

Makes our Cuba policy look silly, again.

Did Hilary come up with this idea by herself? Maybe Obama helped her. Then it would mean Hilary and Obama are both scum politicians who campaign on civil rights sentiments but don't give a damn about human rights when they're in office.

Were this any other nation, I'd agree. But since when has browbeating China made any significant and constant progress in the human rights area? Taking care of the economic crisis is rather important at the moment and Clinton did not say human rights would never be an issue, just that it's not going to get anywhere with the Chinese at the moment and that fixing the economy is a more immediate problem.

Oh, and in before "Where's the Change, Sauron!?"

Nope.

Did Hilary come up with this idea by herself? Maybe Obama helped her.

Evidence?

Ok, she said, in essence, that rights were important, but not as important is global warming, the economy and the environment. What's wrong with this? If these problems aren't dealt with, human rights won't really matter, will they?

It's about priorities. Rights really don't matter if you're dead.

Evidence?

Maybe you won't know since your location is Brazil but in the US, the Secretary of State never does anything the President disagrees with.

If Obama publicly disowns Clinton's words (which is a possibility) then that would mean Hilary went rogue with her statements. But until he does that, it's safe to assume Obama and Clinton on exactly the same page regarding China/Tibet.

This is a woman who agrees with Jack Thompson about the ebils of video games....so are we really surprised about this?

Ok, she said, in essence, that rights were important, but not as important is global warming, the economy and the environment. What's wrong with this? If these problems aren't dealt with, human rights won't really matter, will they?

It's about priorities. Rights really don't matter if you're dead.

Plus she knows that the Chinese are at the moment firmly entrenched in their current human rights stance or whatever passes for it, and that browbeating them on it will merely waste time that could have been spent fixing the More Important Matters.

Makes our Cuba policy look silly, again.

This is China. It has 1.5 billion people. It is big.

http://geology.com/world/china-satellite-image.shtml

This is Cuba. It has .7% of that. It is itty-bitty-tiny.

http://www.destination360.com/caribbean/cuba/map.php

When you piss Cuba off, an old man with a beard or mustache will complain loudly, but nobody outside of his country will notice. When you piss China off, they'll raise tariff's, decrease exports, and sell their dollars and you're f'ed.

Not silly.

Plus she knows that the Chinese are at the moment firmly entrenched in their current human rights stance or whatever passes for it, and that browbeating them on it will merely waste time that could have been spent fixing the More Important Matters.

And establishing closer economic ties might provide the US with the leverage to do something about China's human rights issues.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090220/pl_afp/usdiplomacyasiachinarights

So, basically, the woman that made her crowd into a "vote-for-me-or-you're-against-women's-rights" mob is now showing herself not to give a damn about HUMAN rights, covering both genders.

Only caring about rights when it's about touting fake ones to try and steal an election. She then proceeds not to give a damn about ACTUAL rights. She wanted to have a right to be the one in the Democratic ticket regardless of the votes, but doesn't care about ACTUAL rights.

Really nice.

*sigh*

The election is long over, the right person won, and you can drop your pathological hatred and misogyny.

The issue of cooperation with China is a bit more complex than "human rights be damned."

Regardless, do you have any evidence that this is a stance Secretary Clinton has taken without at least the acquiescence of President Obama? Your singling out the former for U.S. policy is disingenuous and/or myopic.

This is a woman who agrees with Jack Thompson about the ebils of video games....so are we really surprised about this?

Great googley moogley, can that lie die? Especially when it isn't relevant?

Great googley moogley, can that lie die? Especially when it isn't relevant?

Would that nonsequitur count as "Where's the Change, Sauron!?" to you?

And establishing closer economic ties might provide the US with the leverage to do something about China's human rights issues.

Somebody once told me that the best way to get human rights progress in China is for China's middle class to grow...that once there is a more pervasive prosperity, China's own populace will be more able and willing to work for change.

Personally, I think they need the old guy on the house boat from "The Last Dragon" to come show them how to be nice.

Somebody once told me that the best way to get human rights progress in China is for China's middle class to grow...that once there is a more pervasive prosperity, China's own populace will be more able and willing to work for change.

Personally, I think they need the old guy on the house boat from "The Last Dragon" to come show them how to be nice.

Prosperity is for pussies. If you want to advance human rights and democracy in a country, you have to sanction them into it. It's worked for Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Zimbabwe...

Regardless, do you have any evidence that this is a stance Secretary Clinton has taken without at least the acquiescence of President Obama? Your singling out the former for U.S. policy is disingenuous and/or myopic.

Ahem.

Article VIII, US Constitution, "The Secretary of State shall not confer with the President on matters of foreign policy, nor shall she get a kicky new hairstyle."

Somebody once told me that the best way to get human rights progress in China is for China's middle class to grow...that once there is a more pervasive prosperity, China's own populace will be more able and willing to work for change.

Actually China's middle class is the strongest supporter of the Chinese government's policy regarding Tibet. It's the rural peasantry who are indifferent to what's going on with Tibet. Chinese peasants are just trying to eke out a living and mind their own business.

Great googley moogley, can that lie die? Especially when it isn't relevant?

consider your source.

Somebody once told me that the best way to get human rights progress in China is for China's middle class to grow...that once there is a more pervasive prosperity, China's own populace will be more able and willing to work for change.

Personally, I think they need the old guy on the house boat from "The Last Dragon" to come show them how to be nice.

Perhaps we could do both to hedge our bets.

Human rights concerns in China are not an international issue, therefore, it's none of our business. This seems to be your logic in another thread(marines, nice hijack in that one btw), I don't see why it wouldn't apply here as well.

The election is long over, the right person won, and you can drop your pathological hatred and misogyny.

:rolleyes:

The woman said human rights can "wait".

After behaving as if SHE had a right to ignore the will of the people, and THAT right couldn't.

Human rights concerns in China are not an international issue, therefore, it's none of our business. This seems to be your logic in another thread(marines, nice hijack in that one btw), I don't see why it wouldn't apply here as well.

Because no one here is proposing a war on China. And because this came from a woman who tried to make the election about "her rights".

I Kinda liked this part...
China has greeted President Barack Obama's administration nervously, believing he would press Beijing harder on human rights and trade issues than former president George W. Bush.

so I guess China is 'releived'. :p

Because no one here is proposing a war on China. And because this came from a woman who tried to make the election about "her rights".

right... but you said it was none of our business if Sadam was gassing people, yet Chinese atrocities (if you can call them that) are a matter for the US secretary of state to be involved in?

Actually China's middle class is the strongest supporter of the Chinese government's policy regarding Tibet. It's the rural peasantry who are indifferent to what's going on with Tibet. Chinese peasants are just trying to eke out a living and mind their own business.

The middle class are cool with the Tibet occupation?

Oh, man...Michael Moore needs to go over there and make a movie or something...

right... but you said it was none of our business if Sadam was gassing people, yet Chinese atrocities (if you can call them that) are a matter for the US secretary of state to be involved in?

NOT through wars, yes.

The middle class are cool with the Tibet occupation?

Oh, man...Michael Moore needs to go over there and make a movie or something...

Yeah, the middle class in China tends to be fiercely nationalistic and support maintaining control over Tibet and taking over Taiwan.

Oh, man...Michael Moore needs to go over there and make a movie or something...
I approve of this... :D

NOT through wars, yes.

ok, I've just never had someone define "minding your own business" as not invading people. Certainly that's included in it, but includes far more, such as other political pressures.

:rolleyes:

The woman said human rights can "wait".

:rolleyes:

Really? You have a quote to that effect?

Or did U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say she would continue to press China on issues such as human rights and Tibet, but added: "Our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."?

After behaving as if SHE had a right to ignore the will of the people, and THAT right couldn't.

In other words, although YOUR GUY WON, you are just as bitter and resentful over the election as some of our Republican friends. Why do I ever expect better from you?

This is China. It has 1.5 billion people. It is big.

http://geology.com/world/china-satellite-image.shtml

This is Cuba. It has .7% of that. It is itty-bitty-tiny.

http://www.destination360.com/caribbean/cuba/map.php

When you piss Cuba off, an old man with a beard or mustache will complain loudly, but nobody outside of his country will notice. When you piss China off, they'll raise tariff's, decrease exports, and sell their dollars and you're f'ed.

Not silly.

While I'm charmed that you think I have the geography knowledge of a second grader and am in need of remedial education, I don't disagree with the pragmatic value of engaging with China. I'm saying that by comparison engagement with China makes all of our talk of Democratic Principles in regards to Cuba look like what it is: bloviations to justify beating up on the little guy.

In other words, it makes all our fine talk, our stated policy, look silly.

:rolleyes:

Really? You have a quote to that effect?

Or did U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say she would continue to press China on issues such as human rights and Tibet, but added: "Our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis."?

*Shrugs*

Take it with the article, then. I only hate the woman, I didn't write the article.

Makes our Cuba policy look silly, again.

Ok, she said, in essence, that rights were important, but not as important is global warming, the economy and the environment. What's wrong with this? If these problems aren't dealt with, human rights won't really matter, will they?

It's about priorities. Rights really don't matter if you're dead.

^^^These, lol...

consider your source.

This reminds me of the time you and me were in a night market in Taiwan, and you had learned some Chinese, but the dudes there spoke some indiginous language that pre-dated the Kumintang's arrival, so you couldn't ask them for ketchup for whatever radioactive invertebrate you had ordered, and I was trying to pick up on that one lady who lady turned out to be a guy, and we got asked to leave because you kept drunkenly yelling "A mouth is a mouth!"

...I only hate the woman...

Why?

I mean, what is it about her that gets your guts in a twist?

*Shrugs*

Take it with the article, then. I only hate the woman, I didn't write the article.

And the article doesn't say what you asserted.

'Nuff said.

Why?

I mean, what is it about her that gets your guts in a twist?

The way she acted in the primaries, that resulted in her supporters aggravating me.

The way she acted in the primaries, that resulted in her supporters aggravating me.

And yet when even Obama was conciliatory and diplomatic by granting her the post of SoS, you continue to New Mitanni her every chance you get.

And yet when even Obama was conciliatory and diplomatic by granting her the post of SoS, you continue to New Mitanni her every chance you get.

Yeah, well, she was scum during the primaries.

Yeah, well, she was scum during the primaries.

Pot, meet kettle.

Yeah, well, she was scum during the primaries.

Would you find fault with Obama if Obama doesn't disown Hilary's statements?

The way she acted in the primaries, that resulted in her supporters aggravating me.

Thats politicians in General buddy, In America, thats a requirement to obtain office...*shrugs*...

Would you find fault with Obama if Obama doesn't disown Hilary's statements?

On that issue, yes.

I might not post about it, though.

Would you find fault with Obama if Obama doesn't disown Hilary's statements?

What's there's to disown? Clinton said that fixing the world's economy is a lot more important right now than trying to browbeat China about its human rights record like some door-to-door missionary and possibly piss them off into further entrenchment.

I mean, if you're all for empty bombastic theatrics straight from the playbook of Hugo Chavez then yeah maybe nagging the Chinese about improving human rights before fixing the economy which ends up with jack shit getting done sounds great. At least you'll come out a morally superior loser.

Only caring about rights when it's about touting fake ones to try and steal an election. She then proceeds not to give a damn about ACTUAL rights.
'Actual' rights?

As in the 'human rights' which are antithetical to the Chinese history of thought/sense of self?

On that issue, yes.

I might not post about it, though.

Not enough hate to make it worthwhile?

Not enough hate to make it worthwhile?

I don't dislike Obama.

I don't dislike Obama.

So therefore, his role in this china policy you object to is not worth posting refutation of?

"Of my enemies, the scum, I rail when they do a thing....of those I don't dislike, I am silent when they do the same thing...such is the quality of my judgement."

So therefore, his role in this china policy you object to is not worth posting refutation of?

"Of my enemies, the scum, I rail when they do a thing....of those I don't dislike, I am silent when they do the same thing...such is the quality of my judgement."

Is that a literary quote? I'd like to know where is it from. o_O

Since when do we care about human rights abuses in China?

Since when do we care about human rights abuses in China?

Apparently Brazilians do. Bravo to Brazil.

Is that a literary quote? I'd like to know where is it from. o_O

If you had to guess a historical figure that it was from, who would it be?

well, put it this way.

I hate Micheal Moore. thus I will dis any movie he makes. even if I don't see them.

Heikoku 2 admits that he hates Clinton. that doesn't invalidate anything he may say. just makes me (at least) take what he saids about Hilary with a grain of salt. but one can admit that SoS Clinton's remark can be taken that no pressure will be made in reguards to human rights while there is a global economic crisis. in other words... China's Human Rights Violations can 'wait' (one interpretation.)

Many people here admitted they hate the Republicans. does that invalidate anything they say in reguards to Republicans and party politics? no. it just means one has to read their posts a little more carefully.

Many people here admitted they hate the Republicans. does that invalidate anything they say in reguards to Republicans and party politics? no. it just means one has to read their posts a little more carefully.
Why do you want to kill Chinese people?

well, put it this way.

I hate Micheal Moore. thus I will dis any movie he makes. even if I don't see them.

Heikoku 2 admits that he hates Clinton. that doesn't invalidate anything he may say. just makes me (at least) take what he saids about Hilary with a grain of salt. but one can admit that SoS Clinton's remark can be taken that no pressure will be made in reguards to human rights while there is a global economic crisis. in other words... China's Human Rights Violations can 'wait' (one interpretation.)

Many people here admitted they hate the Republicans. does that invalidate anything they say in reguards to Republicans and party politics? no. it just means one has to read their posts a little more carefully.

You missed the point. The Secretary of State takes cues from the President, who is at least acquiscent to this policy.

Yet Heikoku judges the policy of Clinton by one standard of response, and the Presidents by another.

And I never claimed anything Heikoku said is "invalid", merely that its motivated by hate, and inconsistently applied.

If you had to guess a historical figure that it was from, who would it be?

Ooo, Godwin?

You missed the point. The Secretary of State takes cues from the President, who is at least acquiscent to this policy.

Yet Heikoku judges the policy of Clinton by one standard of response, and the Presidents by another.

And I never claimed anything Heikoku said is "invalid", merely that its motivated by hate, and inconsistently applied.

And I never claimed otherwise.

Ooo, Godwin?

Only if you don't know what a Godwin is. Think harder.

I don't dislike Obama.

And I never claimed otherwise.

If President Obama made these same statements, H2 would have no problem with them.

The defense rests.

Only if you don't know what a Godwin is. Think harder.

So, not Hitler. Mmm... I dunno. Stalin?

And I never claimed otherwise.

So, you don't disclaim that your view on this is hateful and inconsistently applied.

That probably warrants a bit more than a "grain of salt".

If President Obama made these same statements, H2 would have no problem with them.

The defense rests.

No, no: I would take issue, but not set up a thread.

well, put it this way.

I hate Micheal Moore. thus I will dis any movie he makes. even if I don't see them.

Heikoku 2 admits that he hates Clinton. that doesn't invalidate anything he may say. just makes me (at least) take what he saids about Hilary with a grain of salt. but one can admit that SoS Clinton's remark can be taken that no pressure will be made in reguards to human rights while there is a global economic crisis. in other words... China's Human Rights Violations can 'wait' (one interpretation.)

Many people here admitted they hate the Republicans. does that invalidate anything they say in reguards to Republicans and party politics? no. it just means one has to read their posts a little more carefully.

Um. The article doesn't say what H2 said it does and he has admitted his motivation is his general hatred -- NOT something specific in what Secretary Clinton said.

Regardless, what part of "Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet" can be taken to say "no pressure will be made in regards to human rights????? :confused:

So, not Hitler. Mmm... I dunno. Stalin?

Why Stalin? What about him makes you think that the phrase, describing your position, would come from him?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090220/pl_afp/usdiplomacyasiachinarights

So, basically, the woman that made her crowd into a "vote-for-me-or-you're-against-women's-rights" mob is now showing herself not to give a damn about HUMAN rights, covering both genders.

Only caring about rights when it's about touting fake ones to try and steal an election. She then proceeds not to give a damn about ACTUAL rights. She wanted to have a right to be the one in the Democratic ticket regardless of the votes, but doesn't care about ACTUAL rights.

Really nice.

Chill out, read the article from a completely impartial perspective. Think about it, could it be your general hatred towards this woman is clouding your judgement, causing you to slightly exaggerate how bad this is?

Why do you want to kill Chinese people?

same reason you want to kill all non-religious people. :p

I never claimed anything Heikoku said is "invalid", merely that its motivated by hate, and inconsistently applied.this isn't pointing at anyone in particular. only those that stopped talking about the article and is focusing on the poster (in this case, Heikoku 2.)

remember, focus on the post, not the poster. ;)

Why Stalin? What about him makes you think that the phrase, describing your position, would come from him?

I dunno, I'm picking historical tyrants and trying them in...

No, no: I would take issue, but not set up a thread.

So, again, the magnitude of response you make is proportionate to how much you personally like, dislike, or hate the individual.

"For my hate is the hinge upon which my mind turns, and those in my disfavor I call foul in what they do, though my friends do the same with no hue and cry."

Plus she knows that the Chinese are at the moment firmly entrenched in their current human rights stance or whatever passes for it, and that browbeating them on it will merely waste time that could have been spent fixing the More Important Matters.

And, in spite of a revolution (actually, a whole series of revolutions and takeovers dating from BCE), the Chinese take on human rights has remained the same for several thousand years - that's embedded cultural behavior that's going to be damned near impossible to uproot.

:rolleyes:

The woman said human rights can "wait".

After behaving as if SHE had a right to ignore the will of the people, and THAT right couldn't.

Because no one here is proposing a war on China. And because this came from a woman who tried to make the election about "her rights".
You're going to be one of those people who just need to grow up, aren't you?

What Clinton said was perfectly reasonable considering:

> that the global economy is tanking and we need Chinese cooperation to work on saving it;

> the US economy is tanking and China is one of our biggest creditors, if not the biggest, and we need their cooperation on that, too;

> that China is notorious for inflicting worse treatment on their victims when they feel pressured by foreign powers, so holding their feet to the fire publicly tends to be counterproductive -- just ask the Tibetans how they were affected by international pressure for China to clean up its human rights record for the Olympics;

> that there is talk of a leadership succession in North Korea already starting after Kim Jong Il's relatively recent stroke, and that related to that extremely dangerous instability, NK has started threatening South Korea again and is threatening to test another missile which might have the possibility to reach the US, and as China is a strong supporter of NK, we really do need their cooperation in handling that country.

Etc, etc, etc.

But you're going to bitch about this, apparently not because you REALLY think Clinton or the Obama administration is abandoning human rights, but just because you personally dislike Hillary Clinton.

I have only one thing to say about that:

Get the fuck over yourself. This story is bigger than you.

Secretary of State Clinton carries out the foreign policy of the Obama administration. If she says something, it is as good as Obama saying it. If you think Obama has not yet abandoned human rights, then apply some thought to the matter and realize that what a diplomat says in front of cameras is NOT the same as what he/she does or says behind closed doors. Just because China is not going to be pressured in public right now, that does not mean that their human rights record is being shrugged off.

So, again, the magnitude of response you make is proportionate to how much you personally like, dislike, or hate the individual.

"For my hate is the hinge upon which my mind turns, and those in my disfavor I call foul in what they do, though my friends do the same with no hue and cry."

There is a saying by an old Brazilian leader/dictator: "To the friends, all. To the enemies, the law."

same reason you want to kill all non-religious people. :p

this isn't pointing at anyone in particular. only those that stopped talking about the article and is focusing on the poster (in this case, Heikoku 2.)

remember, focus on the post, not the poster. ;)

When the poster admits that the post itself is motivated by hate and inconsistency, those things become at issue.

When the post itself, its on-topic reasoning, applies contradictory logic and double standards, those things ARE a focus of the post.

Remember, apply consistent basic reasoning.

This is my own fault, I have you on ignore on my other accounts, and I forgot to set it so on Toomey.

And, in spite of a revolution (actually, a whole series of revolutions and takeovers dating from BCE), the Chinese take on human rights has remained the same for several thousand years - that's embedded cultural behavior that's going to be damned near impossible to uproot.

Perhaps it could be argued that all the the revolutions and takeovers were literally physical manifestations of the Chinese theory of human rights.

There is a saying by an old Brazilian leader/dictator: "To the friends, all. To the enemies, the law."

The baser interpretations of such a sentiment are well reflected in your reasoning thus far.

The baser interpretations of such a sentiment are well reflected in your reasoning thus far.

Nicely put, and eloquently, too. I like.

Perhaps it could be argued that all the the revolutions and takeovers were literally physical manifestations of the Chinese theory of human rights.

Or, perhaps, Dynastic Cycles - the theory that every damned conqueror (including Mao Zedong) that ever tried to take over the Chinese Empire ended up being more Chinese than the Chinese. The Mongols, the Manchurians and so, on all conquered China physically and were, in turn conquered by China culturally - I imagine they would eventually have conquered the Japanese if the Japanese had won WWII.

Or, perhaps, Dynastic Cycles - the theory that every damned conqueror (including Mao Zedong) that ever tried to take over the Chinese Empire ended up being more Chinese than the Chinese. The Mongols, the Manchurians and so, on all conquered China physically and were, in turn conquered by China culturally - I imagine they would eventually have conquered the Japanese if the Japanese had won WWII.

Good point, though I don't think in the last example China could've assimilated Japan. Japan was pretty hardcore in the 40s.

Um. The article doesn't say what H2 said it does which is why I said it could be interpreted by how Heikoku 2 may have interpreted it.

Regardless, what part of "Clinton said the United States would continue to press China on long-standing US concerns over human rights such as its rule over Tibet" can be taken to say "no pressure will be made in regards to human rights????? :confused:

what part(s)?

one interpretation (open your mind now...)
"But our pressing on those issues can't interfere on the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crisis," Clinton told reporters in Seoul just before leaving for Beijing.

in other words, global climate changes, economic and security crisis takes prescedent thus the topic of human rights are on hold.

can't interfere can also be 'can't be a distraction'

this gives China a way out to 'avoid any human right pressuring' by the US by putting more pressure on those 'other topics'. H2 isn't the only one who saw it this way.
also in the article.
"But by commenting that human rights will not interfere with other priorities, Secretary Clinton damages future US initiatives to protect those rights in China," he said

this part...
Before she left, State Department spokesman Robert Wood said human rights would be "an important issue" for Clinton and that she would "raise the issue when appropriate." coupled with her earlier quote can be seen that she would not consider this trip an appropriate time to raise those concerns.

and notice, 'FOR CLINTON' not 'The Obama Administration'. which is one possible source for H2's claim that it's Clinton's choice and not Obama's.

heck, even China was expecting the Human Right pressure to be used.
China has greeted President Barack Obama's administration nervously, believing he would press Beijing harder on human rights and trade issues than former president George W. Bush.

how that is worded can be interpreted that the Obama Administration (at this trip) did NOT put as much pressure as G W Bush's administration.

again, it's all on how one interprets it.

I have no animosity for SoS Clintion and all these were my first impression when I read this article earlier today.

Nicely put, and eloquently, too. I like.

You prefer Obama to Clinton clearly...but their interests are much interwined now, and moreso, many positions she voices will naturally originate with him.

You can critique any you like, in any manner, but if you want to make incisive, persuasive, credible arguments, you may need to recognize where your position trammels upon itself.

I'm not saying hate is never justified, its just not particularly useful in illustrating the errors of even your enemies.

Here's a quote easy to source:

"Never hate your enemy. It clouds your reason."

When the poster admits that the post itself is motivated by hate and inconsistency, those things become at issue.

When the post itself, its on-topic reasoning, applies contradictory logic and double standards, those things ARE a focus of the post.

Remember, apply consistent basic reasoning.

This is my own fault, I have you on ignore on my other accounts, and I forgot to set it so on Toomey.

I'm on your ignore? awww... :(

well, that's kinda nice to know. I'll try to not reply to you from now on then. :p

Bye.

which is why I said it could be interpreted by how Heikoku 2 may have interpreted it. *snip*

I don't posture myself as having great affinity for language, but your "interpretation" seems the most stretched.

Either way, this very policy comes from a Secretary of State that take policy instructions from the President. One was subjected to one level of criticism not applied to the other.

Even Heikoku has not disputed that his/her position is inconsistent, and that's the problem with it, not the interpretation.

I'm on your ignore? awww... :(

well, that's kinda nice to know. I'll try to not reply to you from now on then. :p

Bye.

This one is already going, so it might as well continue; like I said, it was my fault. I'll just try not to post at you in the future.

Part of the problem is, even Heikoku has acknowledge that his/her response is based on a personal feeling towards Clinton herself, yet the policy of the SoS comes from the President.

So, if the principle you're espousing is "Judge the post/decision/etc instead of the person making it", then its actually Heikoku themself who is most egregiously violating that.

I'm just trying to keep people from flaming the poster. that tends to be the most distracting kind of posts... to me anyway. Not trying to defend H2's views nor his... hatred towards Clinton.

which is why I said it could be interpreted by how Heikoku 2 may have interpreted it.



what part(s)?

one interpretation (open your mind now...)


in other words, global climate changes, economic and security crisis takes prescedent thus the topic of human rights are on hold.

can't interfere can also be 'can't be a distraction'

this gives China a way out to 'avoid any human right pressuring' by the US by putting more pressure on those 'other topics'. H2 isn't the only one who saw it this way.
also in the article.


this part...
coupled with her earlier quote can be seen that she would not consider this trip an appropriate time to raise those concerns.

and notice, 'FOR CLINTON' not 'The Obama Administration'. which is one possible source for H2's claim that it's Clinton's choice and not Obama's.

heck, even China was expecting the Human Right pressure to be used.


how that is worded can be interpreted that the Obama Administration (at this trip) did NOT put as much pressure as G W Bush's administration.

again, it's all on how one interprets it.

I have no animosity for SoS Clintion and all these were my first impression when I read this article earlier today.

Um. You are conflating comments by third parties with the actual statements by Secretary Clinton. You are also conflating the spin on Clinton's comments in the article with the actual statements by Secretary Clinton.

An intelligent, careful reading makes clear that Secretary Clinton didn't say anything vaguely like "no pressure will be made in regards to human rights." To the contrary, she clearly and expressly stated pressure would continue be applied regarding human rights.

Further, the rather illogical impression that this is Secretary Clinton's policy and not that of President Obama is not supported by reality (let alone the article).

I'm just trying to keep people from flaming the poster. that tends to be the most distracting kind of posts... to me anyway. Not trying to defend H2's views nor his... hatered towards Clinton.

What particular post do you see as flaming?

To be honest, you've clearly posted some things that are defenses of Heikoku's interpretation of Clinton's statements. You're completely entitled to do that, but it doesn't help to say you aren't doing it.

I'm just trying to keep people from flaming the poster. that tends to be the most distracting kind of posts... to me anyway. Not trying to defend H2's views nor his... hatred towards Clinton.

But you appear to have confused legitimate responses to H2's posts with attacks on H2 himself.

When someone says "X is a murder," it is not attacking the poster to say "No, X is not" and "your post is suspect as you admit you rabidly hate X."

Um. You are conflating comments by third parties with the actual statements by Secretary Clinton. You are also conflating the spin on Clinton's comments in the article with the actual statements by Secretary Clinton.

An intelligent, careful reading makes clear that Secretary Clinton didn't say anything vaguely like "no pressure will be made in regards to human rights." To the contrary, she clearly and expressly stated pressure would continue be applied regarding human rights.
Hmm looks like Heikoku pulled a fast one on me.

Um. You are conflating comments by third parties with the actual statements by Secretary Clinton. You are also conflating the spin on Clinton's comments in the article with the actual statements by Secretary Clinton.

An intelligent, careful reading makes clear that Secretary Clinton didn't say anything vaguely like "no pressure will be made in regards to human rights." To the contrary, she clearly and expressly stated pressure would continue be applied regarding human rights.

Further, the rather illogical impression that this is Secretary Clinton's policy and not that of President Obama is not supported by reality (let alone the article).

I'm taking the article in whole. each piece makes up the whole article.

and note, I did say "and all these were my first impression when I read this article earlier today."

and remember, I am trying to view this in another person's viewpoint. :p

same reason you want to kill all non-religious people. :p
For their jam?



And, in spite of a revolution (actually, a whole series of revolutions and takeovers dating from BCE), the Chinese take on human rights has remained the same for several thousand years - that's embedded cultural behavior that's going to be damned near impossible to uproot.
Perhaps it could be argued that all the the revolutions and takeovers were literally physical manifestations of the Chinese theory of human rights.
There is no 'Chinese theory of human rights'.

Human rights are grounded in Western conceptions of the self; in the largely atomistic conception of the self as an individual with boundaries. The Confucian/Chinese conception of the self as the totality of one's relationships with friends, family, colleagues, etc., doesn't mesh with human rights in any easy way.

Rather than attempting to 'uproot' this perfectly sensible conception, and force a culturally-specific conception of rights, I think there needs to be a cross-cultural appeal. I'm sure the UK/US/etc governments wouldn't pay much attention to a request in change of domestic policy based on Confucian, Taoist or Zen ideals.

I'm taking the article in whole. each piece makes up the whole article.

That's the point: some of the article is Clinton's statement (for which she is accountable, but as a PART of the Obama Administration, not something distinct from it), and some of the article is spin. You're interpretation conflates the two parts.


and note, I did say "and all these were my first impression when I read this article earlier today."

and remember, I am trying to view this in another person's viewpoint. :p

If that viewpoint is admittedly motivated by hate and applied inconsistently, why would you try to emulate that view if you have any interest in clarity or fairness?

Especially if you ostensibly aren't defending that person?

There is no 'Chinese theory of human rights'.

Human rights are grounded in Western conceptions of the self; in the largely atomistic conception of the self as an individual with boundaries. The Confucian/Chinese conception of the self as the totality of one's relationships with friends, family, colleagues, etc., doesn't mesh with human rights in any easy way.

Rather than attempting to 'uproot' this perfectly sensible conception, and force a culturally-specific conception of rights, I think there needs to be a cross-cultural appeal. I'm sure the UK/US/etc governments wouldn't pay much attention to a request in change of domestic policy based on Confucian, Taoist or Zen ideals.

Good poin, and I agree. (I would personally consider myself Taoist and I've never bought into this whole human rights business)

While I'm charmed that you think I have the geography knowledge of a second grader and am in need of remedial education, I don't disagree with the pragmatic value of engaging with China. I'm saying that by comparison engagement with China makes all of our talk of Democratic Principles in regards to Cuba look like what it is: bloviations to justify beating up on the little guy.

In other words, it makes all our fine talk, our stated policy, look silly.

Bah, everyone knows that our policies towards Cuba are based on a vindictive "You let the Russians put missiles in your country!!!!1!!!!11!!!!!" viewpoint. We just keep the democracy bit for appearances sake.

here is the thing with China.
We got to trade with them, they got to trade with us.
However, you don't say yeah we don't care what you do to your people China.
You also don't brow beat them. what you do is leave the matter silent. This way China thinks it might be an issue and does treat their people slightly better.
To just say hey we will trade with you no matter what that move was very amateurish on Clinton's part. And shows why she was such a poor choice for Secretary of State.

here is the thing with China.
We got to trade with them, they got to trade with us.
However, you don't say yeah we don't care what you do to your people China.
You also don't brow beat them. what you do is leave the matter silent. This way China thinks it might be an issue and does treat their people slightly better.
To just say hey we will trade with you no matter what that move was very amateurish on Clinton's part. And shows why she was such a poor choice for Secretary of State.
Indeed it would be. If she had said that. Since she didn't...then I guess it doesn't.

To just say hey we will trade with you no matter what that move was very amateurish on Clinton's part. And shows why she was such a poor choice for Secretary of State.

And I didn't even say it this time.

And I didn't even say it this time.

And neither did she. "We'll trade with you no matter what" isn't even close to what she said.

Ok, she said, in essence, that rights were important, but not as important is global warming, the economy and the environment. What's wrong with this? If these problems aren't dealt with, human rights won't really matter, will they?

It's about priorities. Rights really don't matter if you're dead.
Questionable priorities, though, if global warming (which I don't deny, though I'd like to see more focus on adaptation than mitigation) takes precendence over human rights problems in China. Rights don't matter if you're dead, but how much death would you expect the recession and climate change to cause, and why?

Questionable priorities, though, if global warming (which I don't deny, though I'd like to see more focus on adaptation than mitigation) takes precendence over human rights problems in China. Rights don't matter if you're dead, but how much death would you expect the recession and climate change to cause, and why?

Recession - people out of work - no money to spend on necessities like food (never mind luxuries) - people go without health care, food, clothing, shelter - they die.

Climate change - changes in weather - draught=starvation, floods=starvation, hurricanes, monsoons, typhoons=disruptions in trade, which in turn creates more economic problems.

It's all interconnected. And given the previous comments on the millennia long traditions of China (which don't involve individual human rights) focus on human rights is going to be counterproductive to long-term benefits - like survival - which, last time I looked, was a hell of lot more important than whether a peasant got a trial by jury.

It'd look real good, wouldn't it if the headline read - Ki Mun Lung was found innocent in a trial by jury, but he and his family starved to death due to flooding in Hangchow.

I know that the hierarchy of needs hasn't been on NS recently. Maybe it needs to be reviewed.

"Safety Needs
When all physiological needs are satisfied and are no longer controlling thoughts and behaviors, the needs for security can become active. Adults have little awareness of their security needs except in times of emergency or periods of disorganization in the social structure (such as widespread rioting). Children often display the signs of insecurity and the need to be safe.

Needs of Love, Affection and Belongingness
When the needs for safety and for physiological well-being are satisfied, the next class of needs for love, affection and belongingness can emerge. Maslow states that people seek to overcome feelings of loneliness and alienation. This involves both giving and receiving love, affection and the sense of belonging.

Needs for Esteem
When the first three classes of needs are satisfied, the needs for esteem can become dominant. These involve needs for both self-esteem and for the esteem a person gets from others. Humans have a need for a stable, firmly based, high level of self-respect, and respect from others. When these needs are satisfied, the person feels self-confident and valuable as a person in the world. When these needs are frustrated, the person feels inferior, weak, helpless and worthless.

Needs for Self-Actualization
When all of the foregoing needs are satisfied, then and only then are the needs for self-actualization activated. Maslow describes self-actualization as a person's need to be and do that which the person was "born to do." "A musician must make music, an artist must paint, and a poet must write." These needs make themselves felt in signs of restlessness. The person feels on edge, tense, lacking something, in short, restless. If a person is hungry, unsafe, not loved or accepted, or lacking self-esteem, it is very easy to know what the person is restless about. It is not always clear what a person wants when there is a need for self-actualization."

These are individual psychological needs, but can be applied to cultures. Please notice that needs like self-esteem and self-actualization (both of which would be covered by "human rights") are last on the list - physiological needs and the need for safety come first - so economy, climate, environment are all more important than "rights" (which are a construct and not an absolute in any case).

Questionable priorities, though, if global warming (which I don't deny, though I'd like to see more focus on adaptation than mitigation)...

Easy for you to say in Canada. Here in south-eastern Australia global warming sucks. May I suggest you read this link (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/20/2497095.htm).

The fires of climate change
By Quentin Dempster

Posted Fri Feb 20, 2009 2:50pm AEDT
Updated Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:42pm AEDT


Firefighters are urging all governments to follow scientific advice by halving Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200902/r339229_1541064.jpg
"To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle" - George Orwell.

Victorian taxpayers are about to fund a full-scale royal commission into the catastrophic bushfires of February 7 in which 208 people - probably more - were burnt to death.

There will be no blame. Everything will be on the table: the adequacy of prescribed preventative burning or hazard reduction; the lethal crime of arson; escape clearways; warning alarm systems; 'go or stay' risk assessment and evacuation procedures; fireproof bunkers; planning regulations; building codes; the adequacy of fire fighting resources; and the usefulness of the forest fire danger index.

Submissions from everyone will be welcomed. Such is the local and national trauma and grief that the inquiry is expected to be therapeutic for those who need and want to tell their stories and those who listen to them.

It may be a year to 18 months before the royal commission completes its work.

It is significant to note that two stakeholder groups have already come to concluded views: the 13,000 professional firefighters of Australia and the Climate Institute, which commissions scientific research in Australia into fires and global atmospheric warming.

Climate Institute CEO John Connor told Stateline NSW (on February 20, 2009) that in his organisation's concluded view: "These are the fires of climate change that we've seen in Victoria and perhaps indeed in Port Lincoln in South Australia in 2005. Climate change is not just about warmer weather. It's about wilder weather. Climate change costs ... climate change kills".

In 2007 the Climate Institute (www.climateinstitute.org.au) commissioned research by the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Marine and Atmosphere Research. The researchers produced a paper, "Bushfire Weather in Southeast Australia", which, like actuaries for the insurance industry, projected extreme and catastrophic fire weather risks for the regions of Australia through each increment in global atmospheric warming.

The paper did not then declare Sydney's 'Black Christmas' bushfires in late 2001, the Canberra bushfires in January 2003 or the 2003 and 2007 eastern Victorian bushfire to be directly related to climate change. The language was equivocal: "The recent observed rise in fire danger may be due to a mix of both natural variability and human-induced climate change. The relative importance of these two factors is not known at this time. Observations from the next few years to decades will allow the determination of the role played by each of these factors".

After the deadly Victorian bushfires of February 2009, the Climate Institute is now unequivocal. These were climate change fires. It is expected to make such a definitive submission and ask the royal commission to commission further research. There is much at stake: the lives of Australians living in bush settings; insurance premiums for all Australian property owners; the national economic impact from a massive increase in fire protection costs.

While some politicians have accepted that climate change is behind the exponential increase in extreme fire weather, no government - state, territory of federal - has yet declared the now deadly bushfire phenomenon in Australia to be by scientific definition 'the fires of climate change'.

To make such a declaration, of course, would require a coordinated national, state and territory policy response. The people of Australia would be entitled to ask why they have to wait for the Victorian bushfires royal commission to produce its findings on something that is already staring them in the face. The Canberra bushfires of 2003 and Victoria 2009 were off the scale of the forest fire danger index.

The 13,000 professional firefighters of Australia have collectively determined that climate change is producing the extreme fire weather conditions which have confronted them over recent years. This again is a significant declaration in a body (the United Firefighters Union of Australia) which is known to have its share of climate change sceptics within the membership.

In the open letter to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (dated February 12), national secretary Peter Marshall said:

"Consider the recent devastation in Victoria. Research by the CSIRO, Climate Institute and the Bushfire Council found that a 'low global warming scenario' will see catastrophic fire events happen in parts of regional Victoria every 5-7 years by 2020, and every 3-4 years by 2050, with up to 50 per cent more extreme danger fire days. However, under a 'high global warming scenario', catastrophic events are predicted to occur every year in Mildura, and firefighters have been warned to expect an up to 230 per cent increase in extreme fire days in Bendigo. And in Canberra, the site of devastating fires in 2003, we are being asked to prepare for up to a massive 221 per cent increase in extreme fire days by 2050."

The union is calling for a national inquiry into the state of readiness of the country's fire services to confront yet more climate change fires. And it has urged all governments to follow scientific advice by halving Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

When I challenged the union's NSW secretary Simon Flynn on the practicality of Australia acting unilaterally on greenhouse gas emissions, which everyone understood was a global problem requiring a global response, he replied that firefighters on the west coast of the USA and the east coast of Australia had come to realise the enormity of the change in extreme fire weather conditions. After Victoria he now wanted Australia to take the lead in confronting climate change in particular, as well as the resourcing and preventative strategies for Australians living in all areas vulnerable to climate change bushfires.

Should we discount the urgings of the firefighters' union as stereotypical self-interest for more resourcing and membership? As they put their lives on the line for us, perhaps we could cut them some slack on this occasion and give the firefighters the benefit of the doubt about their now collective declaration of a link between climate change and extreme fire weather.

Should we discount the urgings of the Climate Institute, a privately funded NGO? It could be a front for vested interests in the renewable industry. (On its website the Climate Institute declares that it is primarily funded by the philanthropic Poola Foundation, through the estate of the late Tom Kantor, a nephew of Rupert Murdoch). That might be a worry in figuring out agendas and motivations, but the research it commissioned does carry the signatures of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO.

It is obviously getting harder to put climate change fires into the too-hard basket.

The Climate Institute's website gives a state by state, region by region break down of FFDI (forest fire danger index) tracking the annual change in fire weather.

"Of most concern to firefighters are days classified as having 'very high' or 'extreme' fire dangers. The number of very high and extreme fire-weather days is projected to increase in all scenarios. For example, in Canberra, if the rate of global warming is low, the number of extreme days increases around 8-10 per cent by 2020, and 17-25 per cent by 2050. If the rate of global warming is high, the number of extreme days rises 25-42 per cent by 2020 and 137-221 per cent (around double to triple) by 2050."

As the politicians, economists, insurance companies and emergency services struggle to come to terms with what this means, Australians residing and working in the bush landscapes have clearly been warned.

Do they abandon their now-dangerous lifestyles, or do they push for policy responses which confront the fires of climate change?



Quentin Dempster presents Stateline NSW on ABC TV

"Amnesty International and a pro-Tibet group voiced shock Friday after US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton vowed not to let human rights concerns hinder cooperation with China...T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said the global rights lobby was "shocked and extremely disappointed" by Clinton's remarks."

It always amazes me when people are 'shocked' and 'surprised' when a politcian says one thing and then does another. It's like being surprised that dogs chase cats, or shocked that wolves hunt deer.

Oh, man...Michael Moore needs to go over there and make a movie or something...

I thought the point was to make nice with the Chinese, why would we send them Michael Moore? You want to make nice, we should franchise Hooters in China or something

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090220/pl_afp/usdiplomacyasiachinarights

So, basically, the woman that made her crowd into a "vote-for-me-or-you're-against-women's-rights" mob is now showing herself not to give a damn about HUMAN rights, covering both genders.

Only caring about rights when it's about touting fake ones to try and steal an election. She then proceeds not to give a damn about ACTUAL rights. She wanted to have a right to be the one in the Democratic ticket regardless of the votes, but doesn't care about ACTUAL rights.

Really nice.

Or, more likely, she was told by her boss to skip about human rights and talk bucks.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090220/pl_afp/usdiplomacyasiachinarights

So, basically, the woman that made her crowd into a "vote-for-me-or-you're-against-women's-rights" mob is now showing herself not to give a damn about HUMAN rights, covering both genders.

Only caring about rights when it's about touting fake ones to try and steal an election. She then proceeds not to give a damn about ACTUAL rights. She wanted to have a right to be the one in the Democratic ticket regardless of the votes, but doesn't care about ACTUAL rights.

Really nice.

Now, hang on. If anything, wouldn't this be the perfect time to push human rights, while we've got some serious leverage? This is a golden opportunity here!

She also kicked a puppy.

We should investigate how Socks died.

Oh yes. Soooooo much leverage we've got on China. I hope that was sarcasm, 'cause mine was.

Great googley moogley, can that lie die? Especially when it isn't relevant?

Or accurate.


Anyway to the OP, this doesnt say what you think it does.

Would you find fault with Obama if Obama doesn't disown Hilary's statements?

I actually sent Obama an e-mail today (well, yesterday) stating exactly that. I elected him to fix some serious human rights issues here at home and whatever the economy does under him he WILL fix those issues if he wants my vote for a second term.

Edit: The CNN article I based said e-mail on (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/21/clinton.china.asia/index.html?iref=24hours) appears to have updated since I sent said firm but polite e-mail. I could swear that at the time it had much more of a "she said human rights can wait" spin, IIRC to the point of the article actually containing the words "human rights can wait". It no longer appears to have such a spin and lacks that quote. I first read the article about 8 hours ago and it was updated three hours ago . . .

I actually sent Obama an e-mail today (well, yesterday) stating exactly that. I elected him to fix some serious human rights issues here at home and whatever the economy does under him he WILL fix those issues if he wants my vote for a second term.

Edit: The CNN article I based said e-mail on (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/21/clinton.china.asia/index.html?iref=24hours) appears to have updated since I sent said firm but polite e-mail. I could swear that at the time it had much more of a "she said human rights can wait" spin, IIRC to the point of the article actually containing the words "human rights can wait". It no longer appears to have such a spin and lacks that quote. I first read the article about 8 hours ago and it was updated three hours ago . . .
It was probably scrubbed because she did not actually say anything like that. Those words were used in the initial angry responses published by Amnesty International to what she actually said, which was more along the lines of (paraphrasing) "since we already know what China's position is and how they are going to react, there is little point in holding their feet to the fire on this again right now."

Angered by those admittedly cold-blooded words, Amnesty International issued a statement declaring that any attitude of "human rights can wait" is unacceptable. Perfectly reasonable on their part, considering their mission, and precisely the kind of reaction/public pressure that the US government and all governments need to hear and keep hearing.

But the two points remain: (1) She did not say that human rights were off the table, only that pressuring China about its human rights policies would not be the focus of this one diplomatic visit. And (2) diplomacy is far more complex than 10-second tv sound bites. She says that she is not interested in holding China's feet to the fire. That does not in any way suggest that human rights demands/expectations will not be a part of economic and other negotiations between the US and China, behind closed doors.

All this hasserei is due to nothing more than the knee-jerk reactions of an instant-gratification addicted public.

Recession - people out of work - no money to spend on necessities like food (never mind luxuries) - people go without health care, food, clothing, shelter - they die.
Do you think it's really going to get that bad? Or that we have to neglect human rights issues in order to fix it before it gets that bad? The business cycle always goes up and down; Canada and the US happen to be going down a bit more than usual, but eventually we'll be going up again, and I doubt even what we have now is necessarily that severe.

Climate change - changes in weather - draught=starvation, floods=starvation, hurricanes, monsoons, typhoons=disruptions in trade, which in turn creates more economic problems.
A questionable assumption at most. How can you be so sure how things will turn out in terms of climate in the long term, when even predictions about the weather over the next few days often turn out to be wrong? And how can we be so sure that mitigation will even be effective; what if it turns out to have been too late? Wouldn't it be better to focus on adaptation? And if I recall correctly, China not only has human rights issues, but also pollution issues are emerging there as well...

Also, I don't see how the hierarchy of needs is relevant. It's not like the Chinese government's chokehold just violates the lower needs; it violates the safety needs of individuals worse. I remember coming across something in my high school history textbook about China getting the 2008 olympics; I've sold the textbook since, but I found the excerpt online:

"[China is] a totalitarian police state that tortures citizens who freely express their views-- religious, political or otherwise. It is certainly not different from Moscow in 1980, which was a totalitarian police state. The note that the Olympiad, which in its very charter calls for respecting the dignity of the individual, that that should be ignored is simply preposterous. We are not living in a purely commercial world. We are living in a world where young men and women-- the athletes from all over the world-- should be competing in a free society. Now just imagine the Olympics go to China in 2008 and the Chinese perpetrate outrages similar to the ones we had at Tianamen Square just a decade ago. What would be our reaction?" - Tom Lantos

I'm assuming that by "Chinese" he's referring to the government...

Do you think it's really going to get that bad? Or that we have to neglect human rights issues in order to fix it before it gets that bad? The business cycle always goes up and down; Canada and the US happen to be going down a bit more than usual, but eventually we'll be going up again, and I doubt even what we have now is necessarily that severe.

A questionable assumption at most. How can you be so sure how things will turn out in terms of climate in the long term, when even predictions about the weather over the next few days often turn out to be wrong? And how can we be so sure that mitigation will even be effective; what if it turns out to have been too late? Wouldn't it be better to focus on adaptation? And if I recall correctly, China not only has human rights issues, but also pollution issues are emerging there as well...

Also, I don't see how the hierarchy of needs is relevant. It's not like the Chinese government's chokehold just violates the lower needs; it violates the safety needs of individuals worse. I remember coming across something in my high school history textbook about China getting the 2008 olympics; I've sold the textbook since, but I found the excerpt online:

"[China is] a totalitarian police state that tortures citizens who freely express their views-- religious, political or otherwise. It is certainly not different from Moscow in 1980, which was a totalitarian police state. The note that the Olympiad, which in its very charter calls for respecting the dignity of the individual, that that should be ignored is simply preposterous. We are not living in a purely commercial world. We are living in a world where young men and women-- the athletes from all over the world-- should be competing in a free society. Now just imagine the Olympics go to China in 2008 and the Chinese perpetrate outrages similar to the ones we had at Tianamen Square just a decade ago. What would be our reaction?" - Tom Lantos

I'm assuming that by "Chinese" he's referring to the government...

Did the Chinese perpetuate outrages similar to the ones we had at Tiananmen Square in 1989 during or near the 2008 Olympics? NO.

Case closed.

(Especially as prioritizing one's engagement with China is not the same as abandoning pressure on human rights. One can maintain such pressure without trying to foolishly abandon all relations with China.)

Did the Chinese perpetuate outrages similar to the ones we had at Tiananmen Square in 1989 during or near the 2008 Olympics? NO.

Case closed.

(Especially as prioritizing one's engagement with China is not the same as abandoning pressure on human rights. One can maintain such pressure without trying to foolishly abandon all relations with China.)
I believe the topic itself was more so about Hillary Clinton prioritizing trade over pressing China on such issues.

Also, as for the "case closed" comment, do you mean to dismiss the entire excerpt simply because one component of it proposed a "what if" scenario that by circumstance turned out not to happen?

Hell, how can you be so sure that things like that haven't happened at other times? Sure, they didn't succeed at covering the Tiananmen Square Massacre up, but what if they've gotten better at it?

I believe the topic itself was more so about Hillary Clinton prioritizing trade over pressing China on such issues.

Also, as for the "case closed" comment, do you mean to dismiss the entire excerpt simply because one component of it proposed a "what if" scenario that by circumstance turned out not to happen?

Hell, how can you be so sure that things like that haven't happened at other times? Sure, they didn't succeed at covering the Tiananmen Square Massacre up, but what if they've gotten better at it?
So...what if something happened that we can have no way of knowing about -- shouldn't we base our foreign policy on that?

Um, no, actually, we shouldn't.

I am not as ready as TCT to dismiss the idea because, although we know of no Tiananmen style abuses, China did not deal very well with Tibet immediately preceding the games. However, that changes nothing. I maintain that:

> It is not inappropriate to prioritize the points of discussion on a diplomatic mission.

> It is not inappropriate to acknowledge that because China is intransigent on human rights issues and responds badly to public pressure and embarrassment, there is no point in applying public pressure and embarrassment as it will not result in Chinese cooperation.

> Acknowledging the nature of the subject country and prioritizing the points of discussion on any given diplomatic visit do not in anyway suggest that China is not going to be held to account for its human rights policies by the Obama adminstration, nor do they suggest that Hillary Clinton personally does not care about human rights.