Pelosi and the Lama

So apparently the situation between Tibet and China has gotten to the point that we're sending our annoying politicians NEAR the area to TALK about things - and not speaking FOR the United States but just out of personal opinion.

Yea, we must not really care that much. I mean, it's Nancy Pelosi. Maybe they just needed her out of the House for a while.

I really don't understand the long long history between China and Tibet - I'm one of those dopey Americans who can pretty much sum his knowledge up as "there's a lot of people with signs that say 'FREE TIBET' on them so it's either not free yet and they want it to be free or it's a very strange advertising campaign."

C'mon down to Crazy Wu's Elephant Emporium! We got Asian ones, we got African ones, we got a whole lotta pachyderms and they're ripe for the pickin' - and if you act now, we'll throw in Tibet absolutely free! That's right, we're just givin' away FREE TIBET because I'm CRAAAAAZY WU!

Okay, all joking aside, the Tibetans are claiming now that the death toll of Tibetans is now at 99. Of course, China says the death toll of Tibetans is still at 0, but the death toll of innocent Han Chinese in Tibet is now at 13. Honestly, unless Giraldo is there with his journalism team, I don't think the numbers will ever be real. And even if they were real, we're talking less than a hundred.

Maybe I'm just the product of a horrible generation who paid attention in history class and tried keeping up with the news and would always hear about millions of people being killed, or at least tens of thousands. I mean it's not like I'm unaffected by anything unless it's at WWII level with 60,000,000 deaths (the deadliest war). But China's had a reputation for massacre before and they never got away with less than 50,000 and upwards of a 1,000,000 on some of them. Hell, in Darfur it's been at least 400,000 and even when the Hutu government of Burundi started the slaughter of Tutsis they killed like 50,000.

(Okay, I admit that I needed Wikipedia for those last ones.)

And we're talking about possibly 99 people in Tibet who have been killed. We should ALL be so lucky that the death toll amid governmental conflicts as such should be this low ALL the time! True, if there's ever going to be a resolution to this conflict, the death count will undoubtedly rise. Well, if there's ever going to be a resolution to this conflict that means the ceasing of FREE TIBET signs, I mean.

Few people seem to understand that another resolution is Tibet accepting things and understanding that it is owned by China.

This whole thing used to be so commonplace at a time in history. Forces rode in, conquered a land, and quelled the rebellions until the people understood their place and got used to it and carried on. There's a new jerk in charge and some things may be different and you may get some ethnic changes to the neighborhood, but you still get up and go to work and continue your little existance as a tiny cog in the grand scheme of the universe.

Back to Pelosi. (And yes, I get very little joy out of saying that.)

"As a freedom-loving people, if we don't speak out about the Chinese oppression, then we have lost our right to speak on human rights," Pelosi told reporters. She made the comments during a meeting with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan spiritual leader, noting that she was voicing her personal opinion and not U.S. government policy.

You know, if you're a leader in the U.S. government and you start blathering political agendas like "Chinese oppression" in the midst of a political struggle - there's no f*cking way that anyone is going to believe you're not trying to be officially political.

And this whole generic term "freedom" is kind of misinterpreted a lot. It's NOT a general idea. Freedom only works one way. If I want to do something to you and you don't want me to do something to you, what does freedom say about it? Do I get the freedom to do as I please? Do you get the freedom to stop me? Isn't freedom tantamount to anarchy in some ways?

Or am I overthinking things?

Lastly, I want to take one more jab at Pelosi. Because it's fun.

Pelosi told the crowd at the temple in Dharamsala that it must be karma that brought her to India at such a difficult time.

To quote "The Princess Bride" actor Andre the Giant: "I do not think that means what you think it means." "Karma" is about the balance of nature and that good things eventually come to those who deserve it and likewise for bad things. I don't really know what the Dalai Lama did to deserve a visit from Nancy Pelosi, but if I were a decent non-violent person who has been exiled and am having my people possibly being killed by our oppressors and someone told me that karma was in effect? I'd be pretty damned pissed off.

Wouldn't you?

The article about Pelosi and the Lama




I promise I'll try to make the next post less political. Or at least not about Tibet. Read more!

Blackwater Steroids

There's a lawsuit going on against Blackwater, this private company serving as security guards in Iraq, where we are still at war. If you read into the article, the lawsuit is about charging the company with war crimes, wrongful death, assault, negligent hiring and emotional distress (to the families of Iraqis killed by Blackwater). Unfortunately, the title and main focal point of the article is the allegation that a quarter of the Blackwater security guards are using steroids.

Really - THAT'S the issue on the table here? Steroid use?

I'm frankly getting a little sick and tired of all the hubbub over steroid usage by people. Even if used for non-medicinal purposes, I don't see why steroid use is getting all of this attention. We've all heard about what it does and the effects of the increased testosterone and muscle growth. So what's the problem here? No seriously, what's the problem??

Their main purpose in Iraq is serving as security guards, protecting American citizens. In a place where there's a war going on. The lead attorney in the case, Susan Burke, says she thinks that "there is a whole corporate culture there that essentially rewards the use of excessive force -- shooting first, asking questions later." Did the dictionary and all my encyclopaedias suddenly change the meanings of "security guards" or "war"? I can't help but remember growing up with the knowledge that security guards use force to keep people and places secure. They shoot first and ask questions later. Otherwise, the things they're protecting get attacked and they get fired. I'm buffaloed as to why the lead attorney is basically saying "there is a whole corporate culture that essentially rewards employees doing their jobs effectively."

Seriously, Blackwater's major claim to fame (other than lawsuits) is that during four years of this War in Iraq, none of their protectees have been killed. That's a 100% success rate. Honestly, how can you argue with a 100% success rate? This is no half-assed "win some, lose some" company you're dealing with - this is a "win all, never lose!" company.

Do you know which security guards DON'T have a 100% success rate? The frickin' Secret Service! Of course, they've been in business a lot longer - but they only have a small handful of protectees at a time.

Am I saying that President Kennedy might not have been shot and killed if there were a few more steroid-using members on the force? Hard to say. Keener eye-muscles might have led to identifying the potential shooter (or shooters, if you're a conspiracy nut) and subsequent beatdown and death of said person(s).

What gets me even more irate is that this is a WAR ZONE, not the motherloving Olympics! While we can penalize a biathlete for using steroids and claim it's unfair towards those idiots who ski and shoot things with their own exercise and training alone (even though we also penalize them for using debilitating drugs like marijuana that gives the others an advantage), why are we penalizing security guards in a war zone? Are the Iraqi troops complaining because it's harder to kill Americans with these guards all buffed up with enhancement drugs?

If there's one guy you want on a 'roid rage, it's the guy with a gun who's protecting your ass from terrorists.

That's certainly who I'd hire if I were an idiot who decided to travel to Iraq in the middle of a war. Wouldn't you?

(The article that sparked this rant)



Read more!