Powered by TypePad

« A Little Hillary Rally | Main | Prepping For Petraeus »

April 08, 2008



I really hate to see this happen to the Olympic torch. It seems to me the time for outrage was just before the IOC made its decision to give the Olympics to China. I don't have perfect recollection, but I remember a lot of conservative Americans warning against that choice at the time.

I think China has gotten away with a lot while the US/World press focused on making Bush the bogeyman of the world.


Once upon a time JMax was a runner for the Olympic Flame, I have photos someplace of her with the torch. She ran through the south side of Austin a mile or two ( Porchlight are you listening?). I would have hated for a bunch of idiot protestors to have spoiled her moments, and if there had been any violence in my presence they would have found a more than willing defender in the scrap.

Why was China chosen, it not like they could not have predicted these shenanigans and they were most certainly not the only bidder, not likely even the most qualified one.

M. Simon

I was working at Robert Shaw in Knoxville in '96 (down the street from Instapundit's campus) when I saw the torch go by. I actually ran (on the sidewalk) to keep up with the runner for about 200 yards.

Fun stuff.

This is way more serious.

The more I hear about McCains actual positions the more I like him

M. Simon

Why China?

1. Biggest bribes
2. They wanted to show that they were a real world power
3. Advertising the brand

I'm sure the Tibetans timed their uprising to take advantage of the Olympics. Bold move.

Why not before the host country was announced? How do you get protesters out to demonstrate one country out of a possible 5 (or is it 10)?

With rice prices rising steeply peasant revolts could be added to the mix.

Think of this as a warm up for Denver.

It is the zeitgeist. (How long has it been since any of you OFs heard that term used in discourse?)


Actually I think moving the spotlight onto China is a good thing. They have been certainly getting away with a lot over the last decade or so, and we need to be paying attention. This will get that started.

Now I have a stupid question. What is the deal about Tibet? Is it their location or something else?


Awesome, Gmax! Would have loved to have seen her. Was it in 2001? If so, I was probably nearby at the time - I've been in South Austin since '99.


Yes I think so. I remember it being over in a flash, then the long ride home ( short detour while the coach of the UT women's soccer program gave her a pitch about wearing burnt orange for 4 years).


Ah yes, I went to grad school at UT and now work for the university, so I'm surrounded by burnt orange. But it sounds like JMax has been happy with her choice of light blue!


Carolina blue to be precise.


Pick an island in the Pacific that will not be under water when the earth boils, build a permanent Olympic venue there--save the earth money and aggravation andd make it the international event they claim it is. (All right, do another one in the arctic ocean for the winter games if you must.)


Lefties love to bleat about a Free Tibet. It's that we can't do anything about it so they get to preen and be all morally superior without doing anything.
There is only one agency that has ever freed anyone, the military.
If we ever did increase our military enough to overcome the obstacles and move to free Tibet the Left would trot out those tired old slogans. "No blood for Yak butter!" "Haliburton wants the snow!" "Bush lied, Yeti died!"

M. Simon

The Dali Lama. I saw a vid of him once claiming he had anger management problems. Not bad for a holy man.

Tibetan Buddhism. Always popular in America for at least 150 years. Repopularized by beatniks and hippies.


Was in Shanghai this morning. My regular internet cafe' was closed and replaced with a rather dirty beauty salon, so I was limited to the Hotel's computer and one at another internet cafe, and from neither one could I access JOM these last 2 days. At the new internet cafe'. I was ordered to present my passport for entry into their computer system, prior to getting logged on to the internet. That was new. Anyway, a few observations on the the torch riots.

Of the 40 or so channels in the Shanghai Hilton, channel 1 is CNN, channel 2 is BBC, and channel 4 is CCTV---the Chinese Party mouthpiece. CNN and BBC consistantly ran the torch protests in Europe, but in 1 BBC feature, an anglo BBC reporter was in China asking people on the street if they had heard about the protests and basically if they had agreed with their governments policies. When in each case the citizens replied that yes indeedy they agreed with the Governments policies, he turned to the camera and closed the segment as if he was confident he had just given us the absolute truth of the peoples honest opinions of their government. Then on CCTV, the Party mouthpiece, the anglo news reader just spouted on and on about the affectionate reception the torch ceremony was getting as it circled the world, without a single hint that he was fully aware of everything that was being reported on the other 2 channels and all around the planet.

Now obviously the news wasn't in the paper, nor was the average Joe watching Western channels, but the 2 episodes made me think. The gullible BBC guy reminded me of how in 1831, a 22 year Charles Darwin, onboard the Beagle, had to listen to Captain Fitzroy at dinner tell him that slavery was a good institution because the night before, at a dinner in Brazil, he has asked a slave in front of his master if he liked slavery and the slave answered something like "Oh yes, slavery is very good." Darwin erupted and said how could anyone be so stupid as to take the word of a slave on such a subject, when the man with the power of life over death was sitting right next to him, and listening to every word the slave said. For this, Fitzroy instantly banished Darwin from the ship and it took 2 weeks for the First Mate to calm the waters and get the Captain to apologize and Darwin to return to continue the voyage etc. My point, is that 180 years ago an Englishman knew bulls--t when he heard it, and acted accordingly, yet my sense of the BBC corespondent was that like the naive Fitzroy, he had no inkling that Chinese folks wouldn't instantly broadcast anything but their absolute honest political opinions in front of 1 billion party masters, so what they said must be accepted as Gospel. Yikes! And with the Anglo CCTV reporter, I simply wondered, him obviously being a non-Chinese, and therefore probably not having to worry about deadly consequences to family or loved ones, what would compel him to sit there and spout party platitudes, knowing full well they're a pack of lies. So I suppose I should simply say that on this particular trip to China I learned nothing new about the Chinese, but tons about 2 anglo-western reporters that try to make a living telling the rest of the world about China. Yikes again. Apologies for being so long winded.


All nations, and especially the US, should boycott the opening ceremonies. I believe it is the best compromise position. The athletes still get to compete but China gets exposed to the full measure of world displeasure with their horrible human rights abuses.


Daddy, the reporter wants to stay in China for now, and leave eventually. Otherwise, you might have gotten his honest opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.