Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: abstract who wrote (39030)	7/15/2001 8:03:22 AM
From: abstract	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 65232

One of the things I've learned from my son is to sometimes look at world events from a global perspective, instead of an American one. I had emailed him an article from the front page of the Chicago Tribune which I thought was catty. It is that article that he addresses in the beginning of his response: ----------------- Dad: I think all in all this article isn't bad as a relatively fair treatment of the situation, but as a newspaper article it falls prey to prejudice. the problem is really with journalism: pyramid technique: most (and more general) information at the top, more and more detail but less and less general depictment for fewer & fewer readers at the bottom. by the time you finish reading this article, you've got an okay sense of the complexities inherent in Beijing getting the olympics, but of the 100% of people who are going to read the first paragraph--Chinese-style pandemonium -- in other words, strictly controlled ecstasy -- overtook Beijing as news spread that this city will play host to the 2008 Summer Olympics--how many will read the more fair-minded sentences such as Beijing residents are not comfortable talking about such controversial questions, so when asked what the games could potentially bring to China, they focused on the idea that the games will bring economic progress? I'm guessing you've only got 40% of the readership at that point. so everyone reads that the only way to celebrate in China is under the thumb of the party, the PLA, and the police? Beijingers aren't comfortable talking about human rights because they see human rights as the West's way of keeping China out of its club, a club defined by money, better education, and hard-to-obtain visas. And here's a sentence I read in an article today about how English people have a hard time communicating with Americans, but ended up being something of a commentary on American crassness: [America is a] country that effortlessly shrugs off state murder [but] sees smoking as an affront to civilization. Anyhow, I wasn't in Tiananmen Square when the decision was announced. But reports from an American friend of mine who was there go like this: everyone was standing around Tiananmen Square, not allowed to go onto the actual Square (keep in mind this is Beijing, a city of about 12 million, and Tiananmen Square is the largest public square in the world) except for a special brigade of people with Chinese flags, supposedly the celebration team. then they hoisted the flag, which everyone watched, after which everyone just went home. yeah. they just went home, or somewhere else. whether the police cleared the place (likely; I saw more cops that night than any other) or not, I don't know. but here are two things not everyone will think about, but riot police have to think about: what if Beijing didn't get the bid? then you've got eight million angry people on the streets of Beijing: those police had better be there, or my American safety is threatened. And then: remember how many cars, storefront windows, and faces were destroyed when the Bulls won the world championship? might a cop or two clearing the streets be a good thing? again, I don't like totalitarianism at all. I've got lots of problems with the way china runs itself. but in the spirit of fairness, I think the article could have been re-written--or even re-organized--to make the ignorant americans a tad less ignorant. I viewed the responses to my vicarious post (okay, that's a misuse, but it was through you). glad everyone thinks I'm interesting. I wonder if anyone will write anything substantial in response. . . I doubt it. I think they're probably not willing to disagree with your son, though they're probably willing to disagree with you (face is an issue in america more than people think, isn't it?). also, if these are people who say things like you don't reward a dog for bad behavior, then they're probably not going to respond to the only really controversial/stimulating sentence in my email, nothing more than a parenthetical throwaway I didn't elaborate on because I was writing to you only: I forgot to mention the whole human rights thing, how some people still believe that by shunning China you can get them to change. my favorite comment from a response was this one: Good to know you two can converse freely. Does she mean she's glad we have a good father/son relationship, or does she mean she's glad the Chinese government doesn't read my emails? either way, I think she doesn't give the world enough credit. Love,