|
Why should China care?
Thos.P.Jackstraw Updated: 2004-09-27 08:40
There was a lot more sense in the Christian Science Monitor's article, "China Leadership Shifts, But It Hopes US Leaders Don't", by John Hughes, in a way, than one can usually find in an American newspaper -- the NY Times, for instance, is loaded with mostly filler, it seems.
To fill the paper, many of the American journalist will take one small idea (their job description does not require, and may not even desire, any of them to be deep thinkers), and create a whole wasted barrage of words with a variety of stylish dressings, or garbage dredged up to stir the mobs -- so it's Dan Rather that apologizes for CBS's bullshit, but only, well after they were caught, with no where to run and nowhere to hide!
Of course, I think the CSM's author, John Hughes, was off base with trying to suggest what the Chinese government officials might be thinking. What is the point of the supposition and assumption, except to let one's mind run unchecked over territory beyond its capacity -- a futile exercise, I think.
I would agree that Kerry's pro-Union and anti-out-sourcing posturing looks very typically unfriendly of the US -- so, what else is new?
I am almost sure the Chinese government officials know that American politicians are not bound by their verbiage.
Do you remember: George W. Bush campaigned last time with such hot-air: that the USA "was not going to go chasing around the world, putting out fires everywhere", but was going to concentrate on "the business of America -- which is business".
You see, all of Kerry's Pro-Union noise, only serves to collect and galvanize the old rabble of standard Democratic block votes; after all, how really bright are Union workers? -- they voluntarily subscribe to a system which is quite openly acknowledged to be run by gangsters!
Both candidates express the same basic foreign policy course: territorial gain under the guise of freedom and democracy -- the only two things that can save the world, or whatever it is they say.
Throwing around powerfully charged words like teenage children, this is what seems to draw the crowd that bothers to vote in our farcical American system of democracy.
American foreign policy is not something that is up for debate and discussion; and anyway, politicians never really debate nor discuss anything of any depth, period.
The deep thinking is done in the war colleges, the think tanks and the like; decisions are made to please those that wield the power, and that is certainly not the politician's constituency! It won't be the Union mob, either! Union bosses will get perks for delivering up their addle-brained assembly line-type workers' votes in November, that's all.
The article points out that Kerry is an uncertain weight, untried and not as predictable as what is currently in place.
Can you get much worse than what is currently in place? The cowboy is pissing on everybody's boots -- he may not be drunk, but he has had way too much to drink! Bush's drunkard background reeks through his damned and determinate, but quite decisive, 'hangover' style of thinking.
This is the kind of reaction, the drunken barroom variety, that has plagued every western decision that has ever been in the hands of someone, whose brain has been pickled too long. This disease clearly effects higher functions of the brain!
A once-pickled brain can no longer encompass greater thoughts than was planted in the evolved basal ganglia of lower animals, there is no ability to encompass innovation, there is an inability to embrace an epiphany; the dullard mind can, perhaps, maintain a routine and a set of precast fixed responses, but not much more.
| The above content represents the view of the author only. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
