Steven-
I'm not sure what the relevance of a month's passing is when responding to invalid criticism. I felt the need to back off a little from SI, so I let LK's and your comments sit for bit. Then the past two weeks I been snowed under. But if you agree that you could be called an apologist, well I really don't understand the reaction my use of that word received. It seemed to viewed in the vein of "here's Larry engaging in improper conduct".
<<If you want to start a new discussion, why not begin by telling us how you think relations with China should be conducted?>>
Be careful what you ask for Steven- you might get it! More seriously, I have given broad guidelines for a framework for how the US gov should approach the government of China (eg. post 8587). But I'll take your suggestion to heart and try to offer more specific suggestions for the next president of the USA- you just steel yourself for a lynching for having issued the invitation.
Larry
P.S. I understand I use language to which some- including yourself- object. I view my role as something of an agent provocateur, so I don't apologize for some of my admittedly harsh rhetoric. And I don't think I need to be as restrained as someone in say an official position might be. Quite frankly, those responsible for the arrest of a lone demonstrator commemorating the events at Tianamen of 10 years ago are, ipso facto, thugs in my eyes. They are certainly the enemy of the human spirit and deserving of condemnation. I will stand, if only in a very limited way, for those arrested for the crime of speaking their mind. |
