Job Discussion Forums

[ChinaMovieMagic]

SHADOW!!!!


The Real But Unspoken Reasons For The Iraq War
... Saddam's switch for his oil sales from dollars to the euros on Nov. ...in global trade, in term of value, if pricing were to shift to the euro, ...
www.rense.com/general34/realre.htm - 77k - Cached - Similar pages

Doug's Dynamic Drivel: The Bottom Dollar
... In November 2000, Saddam Hussein insisted that Iraq's oil be bought in euros.... "create a momentum to shift the oil pricing system to euros." ...
www.thealders.net/blogs/archive/001134.html - 21k - Cached - Similar pages

CCC - From Petrodollars to Petroeuros: Are the Dollar's Days as an ...
... States invaded Iraq because in 2000 Saddam Hussein had switched from dollars to the euro as the medium of exchange for purchasing Iraqi oil�the invasion ...
www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/nov03/middleEast.asp - 54k - Cached - Similar pages

Revisited - The Real Reasons for the Upcoming War in Iraq: A ...
... "Baghdad's switch from the dollar to the euro for oil trading is intended to rebuke ... Saddam Hussein in 2000 insisted Iraq's oil be sold for euros, ...
www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html - 208k - Cached - Similar pages

[ChinaMovieMagic]

GoMan72: >>What were Universities created for in the first place? To encourage discussion and debate on a wide range of topics and hopefully come up with theories, recommendations, etc, etc, etc...<<

Last semester, I taught all Professors headed for further study abroad. There were NO liberal arts/humanities/social science folks. All were techies/medicine/ag...all national economic development...except for one oddball...physical education...

The policy advisors are more typically at the Social Science and Science Academies. The discussion and debates take place at the higher levels, behind closed doors.

As EIL teachers, there are all sorts of ways we can promote critical thinking, as long as the powers-that-be don't see it as a threat to the "stability of the system" or to "Chinese culture."

[rickinbeijing]

Magic,

Anyone who uses words like "Shadow-spirit" and "Mother Earth" is obviously a liberal or, worse yet, a socialist.

Your posts ramble and read like e.e. cummings on an acid trip. I doubt even Jack Kerouac could follow the thread of your argument.

Yes, I know you are comfortable attacking all American institutions. Those beans in Bostons have turned to so many farts that you've clouded your judgment, poor fellow. And what a crew up there: Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry. Dinosaurs who tred the earth. It is amazing how a state with some of the finest institutions of higher learning in the nation produces such clueless politicians.

Go-man,

Pray, do tell, what a "true fact" is? Isn't that a bit redundant? Or are there "false facts?" Hmmm...

You're in Australia commenting on China. Now there's a vantage point!

Sure, there has been progress in Chinese academia and the influx of foreign experts and teachers is a clear indication of that. But it's still a lot of window-dressing. Most of my taboos remain just that. Of course, some colleges are more open-minded then others but I still maintain that it would be the rare middle school indeed that would permit discussion of any of these taboos in class.

Enough said, signing out of my own thread. Feel free to ramble on, rambling man.

[ChinaMovieMagic]

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/attack.php


Attacking the Person (argumentum ad hominem)


Definition:

The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself. This takes many forms. For example,the person's character, nationality or religion may be attacked. Alternatively, it may be pointed out that a person stands to gain from a favourable outcome. Or, finally, a person may be attacked by association, or by the company he keeps.
There are three major forms of Attacking the Person:

ad hominem (abusive): instead of attacking an assertion, the argument attacks the person who made the assertion.
ad hominem (circumstantial): instead of attacking an assertion the author points to the relationship between the person making the assertion and the person's circumstances.
ad hominem (tu quoque): this form of attack on the person notes that a person does not practise what he preaches.


Examples:
You may argue that God doesn't exist, but you are just following a fad. (ad hominem abusive)
We should discount what Premier Klein says about taxation because he won't be hurt by the increase. (ad hominem circumstantial)

We should disregard Share B.C.'s argument because they are being funded by the logging industry. (ad hominem circumstantial)

You say I shouldn't drink, but you haven't been sober for more than a year. (ad hominem tu quoque)
Proof:

Identify the attack and show that the character or circumstances of the person has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the proposition being defended.

[goman72]

[MickyB]

I think ya just made a typo! Gosford?

[ChinaMovieMagic]

To balance the classroom (non-)discussion of Taboo Classroom Topics, BELOW is a dynamic which, in US official mass media channels, is generally unrecognized and/or intentionally non-visible...as it goes counter to the "emperor's new clothes"..."Benign Hegemony" (US multi-national corporate-style)

Toward a new literacy of cooperation
Technologies of Cooperation

We achieved our first milestone on the beginning of a long road with the Cooperation Project I have embarked upon with The Institute for the Future. We used the Socialtext wiki, and Ross Mayfield, who was there, blogged the event.

This week I participated in a mind-bending IFTF event shaped by Howard Rheingold on A New Literacy of Cooperation. They are developing a new framework which challenges the assumptions of business strategy that centers around competition. The rise of open source, intellectual property commons, participatory politics, participatory media, and social software all give rise to new cooperative strategies for business.

http://www.smartmobs.com/archive/2004/05/25/toward_a_new_li.html

[ChinaMovieMagic]

R.I.B. seems to be in agreement w/ the A.E.I, the old demonizing-confrontationist school, rather than engagement w/an evolving China....

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=103&ItemID=7303

2/24/2005

For some two decades the hard-liners, with their close ties to Chang Kai Sheck, dominated U.S.-China policy. But lured by the potential of China's markets, and anxious to widen the Sino-Soviet division, the engagement wing of the party seized the initiative with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's trip to China in 1971, establishing relations with Peking.

The old confrontationist 'China lobby' was hardly dead, however. Using the immense wealth of the Scalife, Olin and Carthage foundations under the umbrella of the highly influential American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the 'lobby" recruited a group of well-placed, powerful political figures.

AEI members include neo-conservative icons like Lynne Cheney, Charles Murry, Michael Novak, Irving Kristol, Ben Wattenberg, Frank Gaffney, and Michael Ladeen.

The AEI is closely aligned with the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), the group that successfully lobbied for 'regime change' in Iraq and argues that it is a strategic necessity for the U.S. to control the world's oil supplies.

PNAC, the brainchild of AEI's Kristol, includes among its members Vice-President Dick Cheney, Assistant Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, former State Department officials Richard Armitage and John Bolton, and other leading Administration figures like Elliot Abrams, Richard Perle, and Zalmay Khalilzad, presently U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan.

The confrontationist's goals are much the same as they were in the opening years of the Cold War: ring China with military bases, support Taiwanese independence, and, in Kristol's words, 'Work for the fall of the Communist Party oligarchy in China.'

In short: corner the dragon.

Recent events suggest that the confrontationist wing is back in the driver's seat.

Goss's and Rumsfeld's characterization of China contradict last year's conclusions of the Administration's Independent Task Force on Chinese Military Power headed up by former defense secretary Harold Brown and retired admiral Joseph Prueher. The panel found that while China is modernizing its military, it is 20 years behind the U.S., and that 'the balance between the United States and China, both globally and in Asia, is likely to remain decisively in America's favor beyond the next 20 years.'

China's military budget is less than one tenth that of the U.S., and it does not have a massive arms industry, preferring to purchase submarines, destroyers, aircraft and high performance anti-aircraft missiles from Russia and Israel. In spite of Rumsfeld's grim forecast, the Chinese navy is designed for defending its territorial waters, not projecting force elsewhere. While the U.S.

has a dozen aircraft carriers, China has one, and an old obsolete Soviet one at that.

[gregoryfromcali]

Somehow I think there is something wrong with keeping your mouth shut on issues your disagree with. (Of course I mean outside of the classroom.)

How do you guys deal with it?

[ChinaMovieMagic]

At English Corner last Friday--outside in the dark--I was asked a question:
"What's your opinion of Deng Xiao Peng?" Now that rapport has been established over the course of this semester, I felt like being cryptic...even Chaplin-esque. (Chaplin was a Socialist, hounded out of US, lived in exile in Switzerland.)

I did a Silent Movie magic move, turned my back to them and innocently looked up at the moon. They immediately laughed, good-naturedly.
(Truly I enjoy being able to promote/hear good-natured laughter in China.)

Then...various 'Schools of Thought' voiced their opinions:
* "Come on back! It's OK. Really...we can talk about that..." (Uranus)
*"Well...it's really not a...we shouldn't..." (Saturn)

I can do that because they know that I am truly a 'FRIEND OF CHINA.' They know that I have good-wishes for China--the country, the nation, the people, the culture. So...they don't get irrationally sensitive, or see me as a "China-basher." They are much more aware of the SHADOW side f Chinese culture/govt. than many of my fellow citizens. Thus, I have more hope for China's upcoming future than I do for some countries.

[The Great Wall of Whiner]

TAIWAN:

Everyone knows Taiwan is a prosperous island with it's own laws, government, politicians, strong economy, freedom, wealth, and would never want to have Beijing as it's master.

TIBET:

Everyone knows about the brutal occupation of Tibet by China, the invasion, the abuses, the supression of religion, supression of freedom, destrcution of monestaries, and pillaging of natural resources and ancient treasures.

XINJJIANG:

China invaded Xinjiang, occupying it with soldiers. There are numerous accounts on-line of the abuses (sexual, physical, torture) and even forcing the Mulsim majority to eat pork. Supression of religious rights also goes without saying

TIANANMEN:

1989, China killed thousands of unarmed farmers and students who were protesting corruption and demanding democracy in China. The massacre was unprevoked and well-documented.

HISTORY BOOKS LIE:

China claims Japan killed over 40 million Chinese during the war. But the rest of the world estimates about 10 million, not 40 million. 40 million has never been independently verified. 10 has. Many times over. China also tells students that America started the Korean war, when in fact it was Noth Korea invading South Korea which started the war. They don't teach about their country's atrosities (Tiananmen, Xinjiang, Tibet, etc) yet scold Japan for doing the same.

ABUSE OF ORPHANS:

In Chinese orphanges, children are often tied down in their cribs, or strapped down by the legs to a chair with a hole to catch feces. In many instances, the directors of the facilities sell the children and the records "disappear" because the childrens' livers, eyes, etc. are valuable for medical transplants. Sexual abuse, torture, lack of food, etc. are everyday problems for the children. Most children are girls, abandoned by China's desire to have boys not girls.

JAPAN:

Japan has apologized many, many times to China. It is well-documented. Now Japanese PM even layed a wreath in Nanjing honouring the massacred during the Rape f Nanjing. He offered his apologies to the Chinese people. The Chinese are not told this, however. Japan has also given trillions of yen to China since 1972 in aid and development. China signed a treaty with Japan waiving all rights of war reparations. Even so, Japan has given grants, donations, aid deals, development funds, and also also provided trillions of yen in interest-free or low-interest loans to government agencies and private companies investing in China. Aid at an estimated at $30 billion US and loans at an estimated $20 billion US.

CENSORSHIP:

China hides the truth from it's people. It blocks the BBC on the internet due to a news documentary called "the dying rooms" telling the world about China's orphanages and the abuses there. Freedom of speech, cracked down using the excuse of a "crackdown on pornography", is commonplace. If China was serious about stopping sex, prostitution would be cracked down on more severely. China censors all information critical of China, including all the subjects written above. Chinese people are not free to say as they wish without fear of repercussions.

Chinamoviemagic, you make me laugh when I read your posts because I can pick holes in every single one of them.

[ChinaMovieMagic]

Re:>>Chinamoviemagic, you make me laugh when I read your posts because I can pick holes in every single one of them.>>
Please be more specific. The points you made above do not relate to what I've written, do they? Citizens from different nations engaging in extensive criticisms of "other nations"...to what benefit? Distract attention from one's own nation? "We may have problems, but at least we're not as bad as THEM..." RESULT...it lowers the QC all around. Patriotic Citizens--especially from "democracies"--should seek to improve conditions in their own nations, where they have the best chance of changing the situation.

On the other hand, there's also the strategy of Amnesty International, in which citizens engage in global actions focused upon human rights abuses in anywhere but their OWN countries. Certainly it's better to have an NGO, rather than the US State Dept., as the sourse of a human rights White Paper, because it's clear that the US State Dept. uses a strategically selective "double standard" in its criticisms. Even Amnesty International has been accused of yielding to massive pressure from the US, in terms of the extent and intensity of its criticisms.

Key point, as Noam Chomsky advises, if the goal is to CHANGE conditions, we should strategically SELECT our targets/campaigns, rather than risk being seen/categorized as "aiding and benefitting the enemy." But not everyone knows that, do they?

RE:
<<TAIWAN: Everyone knows Taiwan is a prosperous island with it's own laws, government, politicians, strong economy, freedom, wealth, and would never want to have Beijing as it's master.

TIBET: Everyone knows about the brutal occupation of Tibet by China...>>
===============================================
Not everyone knows it, but ABOVE are good examples of the Logical Fallacy called Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)


Definition:

A proposition is held to be true because it is widely held to be true or is held to be true by some (usually upper crust) sector of the population. This fallacy is sometimes also called the "Appeal to Emotion" because emotional appeals often sway the population as a whole.

Examples:
Polls suggest that the Liberals will form a majority government, so you may as well vote for them.
Everyone knows that the Earth is flat, so why do you persist in your outlandish claims?
===============================================
For example, if I were to write:
"Everyone knows that the brutal US invasion and occupation of Iraq is a War Crime"--it would NOT be a logical statement, even if a World Court were to make such a judgement supporting Kofi Annan's reluctant admission that the invasion was not in accord with International Law.

"Everyone knows" is the operant phrase. Polls have shown that nearly 50% of the people who voted for Bush still believe the original <INFO> they received from US govt./media:
*that Saddam was linked w/ the 9/11 terrorism
*that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction

Here the phrase should be: "50% still BELIEVE..."...although, from THEIR point of view...they KNOW it!!! AND...apparently nothing much will alter this.

Regarding Tibet...for comparison, compare US and China govt. relations with their "Minority Peoples":
*how long have the majority culture had relations with the minorities?
(In USA, centuries. In China, thousands of years.)
*what are the current conditions of the US/Chinese native peoples in terms of cultural preservation/language/religion?
*are you aware that many US Native Americans describe their treatment by the US govt. over the centuries as being "Genocide"?

In the spirit of empathy:
*what do you see motivated the Chinese Communist officials to (1)"liberate" Tibet? and (2)to refuse to grant it "independence"?
*what do you see motivated US govt. officials/citizens to engage in their actions/policies with Native American over the centuries?

ALSO...for those well-intentioned individuals who seek to promote Human Rights in China, it can be useful to consider the perspectives/strategies of, for example, Chinese-American Human Rights NGOs.

=============================================

Here's another interesting perspective.

HUMAN RIGHTS AND UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD CHINA FROM A CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE
Gregory J. Moore

Crossroads Monograph Series on Faith and Public Policy

No. 27
1999

Heidi Rolland Unruh, Managing Editor

Gregory Moore is working on his doctoral dissertation at the Graduate School of International Studies, University of Denver.


http://esa-online.org/crossroads/monographs/moorefull.html

<<<In the Western position in regard to human rights, the �struggle� centers on an argument that human rights as defined in the UN documents are universal. An alternative view, posited by leaders in China, Malaysia, and Singapore among others, is that human rights are not universal, but rather can be defined only as being relative to local cultural, historical, and/or developmental realities. If the Chinese government prevails in its bid to make human rights seen as developmentally relative, they will be able to hold their heads high as they continue on their current course of development, wherein individual rights are sometimes subsumed for the �collective good� of economic development and the maintenance of order, the status quo, and the Chinese Communist Party. If China bows to the universal interpretation of human rights found in the UN�s Universal Declaration, it must make monumental changes in its social order, its legal system, and its system of governance, acknowledging that the state must be fully accountable to the people it governs in every respect.

...The Chinese, therefore, see the present human rights debate as the continued attempt by Westerners to dominate them and reshape them into an image of the West, philosophically, economically and politically. Yet the Chinese have always seen and continue to see themselves today as fundamentally different from the West and the rest of the world, and quite capable of choosing their own path to development. Consequently, they find it insulting that the U.S., a nation with so much injustice and so many double standards in its own history (slavery, genocide of native populations, racism, CIA plots to overthrow governments, etc.), should deem itself worthy of judging the Chinese, particularly as it concerns a matter that according to the UN Charter falls within the purview of their own sovereign authority.

China, like the United States, is a sovereign state, and they, like Americans, have dreams and aspirations. If Americans truly believe in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, they must recognize that the Chinese are certainly endowed by the creator to have the same rights as God has granted Americans, which include the rights of self-rule and sovereign statehood. Despite all the problems in China today, the people value this more than they value what they consider the abstract concept of human rights at present.


...As Americans and Christians, we should try to influence the Chinese government to move toward full implementation of human rights, because we believe that our creator himself values such rights. Yet Americans cannot run China�s government, nor can we choose China�s form of government for it. Our role should be to provide a �human rights witness� so that the Chinese people will see it, desire it, and press their leaders for it, and so that their leaders too will see it in our government�s actions, noting its contributions to justice, efficiency and long-term stability. The policy of providing a �human rights witness� in the context of engagement seems the most effective U.S. human rights policy toward China, as well as the most consistent with biblical principles of both justice and love in an imperfect world of sovereign nation-states.

[namdak]

ChinaMovieMagic says:

[Madmaxola]

CMM is not "defending" China- he is pointing out a fallacy- which is what that is. If you actually read anything he posted you would see that he does not support the Chinese government.

[ChinaMovieMagic]

Namdak, please don't misunderstand the sentence: <<Not everyone knows it, but ABOVE are good examples of the Logical Fallacy called Appeal to Popularity (argumentum ad populum)>>The aim was NOT to minimize a Tragedy (one which is mostly NOT KNOWN by folks in China, yes?) but to suggest that Logical Fallacies should NOT be used in making an argument.

In the Los Angeles area I knew folks in the Tibetan community, and I have stayed w/Tibetan family in Sichuan's JiuZhaiGou, and in 1975 stayed in N. India's Dharamsala, base of the Dali Lama. I have great respect for Tibetan culture, and feel that the loss of a culture/language, is a tragedy--whether by government policy or the result of the "consumer economy.".
In JiuZhaiGou, as a UNESCO site, tourism has increased greatly, meaning many folks can buy cars, and make easy money selling trinkets to tourists and having them stay in their guest houses. The culture is being lost. Young folks say: "Why should we learn our Tibetan dialect? How can it help us make money? English is more useful." I discussed this situation w/Tibetan Elders in JiuZhaiGou, and wrote to 3 UNESCO offices, asking for general feedback, materials (such as DVDs dealing w/tourism issues), as well as Inquiries regarding support for a community-based Future Search. I have yet to receive a reply.

Regarding my looking at China w/"rose-colored glasses"...again, this is the "personalization" Logical Fallacy. You know the story of the Blind Men and the Elephant?

The key point is what I choose to write in this public forum, and how I write. This is the element of discretion and strategy. Sincerely I FEEL/SEE/THINK/WRITE...there is more hope for healthy cultural evolution in China...than in USA...and...I can be useful in China, as a Johnny Appleseed. In USA, I fear that the powers-that-be have me on some sort of Patriot Act list of "Enemies of the State."

In the spirit of empathy, I wonder if you might answer:
*what do you see motivated the Chinese Communist officials to (1)"liberate" Tibet? and (2)continue to refuse to grant it "independence"?

Finally, I ask:
*Do you think everyone in the Tibetan community in USA KNOWS that the CIA assisted the Dali Lama in his escape to India in 1959?
*Can you see that the Chinese officials can question the motives of some well-placed US supporters of the "Free Tibet" movement, when they don't have the same concerns for the genocide used against Native Americans, the spiritual protectors/legal "owners" of the US land?
*Can you see that certain US supporters of "human rights" are extremely selective in their choice of targets to demonize, that a "double standard" is used, and many USAmerican citizens still seem to NOT KNOW this.