Free Republic

Wired Magazine wrote about this concept and China's involvement in this month's issue:

link

Mr. Journalist, I don't care if your name is Chinese but you,sir, are wrong.

1) As far back as almost anyone can trace it was the Chinese who refereed to themselves as the "Middle Kingdom", and it nothing to do with the middle location on the flat and square earth. It refereed to the belief -- by the Chinese -- that their land was the middle kingdom between heaven and earth.

2) "Actually, the name has another, more accurate interpretation that has escaped Western observers: China also means central state." Again, wrong.The word China does not mean "[the]central state". It comes from Ch'in Shih Huang Ti, First August Emperor of the Ch'in Dynasty. The first ruler (back in 200 B.C.) the at conquered/unified a good part of what we now know as China.

Cheeze louise! I hate to make a big deal out of this, but this character muffs this basic stuff this bad right out of the gate....

----------------------------------

I think what he was trying to say was that the English translation of the word "Zhong Guo", which is almost always "Middle Kingdom", gives the inappropriate connotation. The word "middle", just like the character "zhong", is very vague in the sense that we have to ask, "in the middle of what?". Without knowing Chinese history, most people would interpret middle in the sense of "top-middle-bottom" or "left-middle-right" and not "middle vs. periphery". In this case, "middle" is in the sense of "middle vs. periphery" and refers to the traditional Chinese concept of "middle of the civilized world". Thus, "zhong" is better translated as "central", a more specific word that always gives the correct connotation of "middle vs. periphery".

Regrading point 2, I think he meant to say "[the Chinese word for] China also means central state". I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that the English word "China" was derived ultimately from the name of the Chinese emperor.

Doerflinger says Melton and his fellow researchers, in a scientific paper accompanying the announcement, "admit that their cell lines accumulate chromosomal abnormalities in culture, and that the abnormal cells grow much faster than the normal ones -- the implication being that these new cell lines may soon be completely taken over by abnormal, potentially cancerous cells."

Idiot talking about things that he knows nothing about...

Is it documented that she would not use painkillers in her clinics, but came to American hospitals for treatment of her own disease???

Yes. Her hospices gave nothing stronger than aspirin for pain despite having millions in the bank. However, when MT got heart problems, no one less than a heart specialist in NYC would do.

Oh, and she was also quite proud of ordering her nuns to give secret baptisms on people's death beds by wiping their foreheads with a damp cloths and saying the right words.

Dang, can't belive the LA Times actually published this. Maybe somebody there actually has a brain.

Arnold is promising nothing, except to bring the national GOP to the Left.

He's promising that he will try his best to fix California. Given Arnold's record of doing a world class job on everything he sets his sights on (i.e. bodybuilding, business, acting), I'm inclined to trust him.

McClintock's platform is unworkable promises + an inability to lead. If he hypothetically wins the election, he will go down in history as the governor of California that managed to do worse than Davis.

The West Bank and Gaza are immoral hell holes filled to the brim with folks who support blowing men, women and children to bits. My patience with this over.

The unfortunate truth is that you are right. If the Palestinians had staged peaceful protests like Gandhi, the Israelis would have given them their country in a heartbeat. After all, Jews know more than other people what it means to lose a country.

Instead we have a sick culture that has developed an insane belief that if enough Jews are killed then maybe the rest will leave. Leaders who want to have peace with the Jews are assasinated while madmen who send human bombs (they are too stupid to come up with anything better) to blow up the innocent are cheered.

I too have lost patience with the Palestinians. They had 10 years to show that they can behave as a civilized people but they literally blew that chance up.

Tom McClintock is the only bona fide Republican in this race.

Actually he can't even get the support of the state or the national GOP. But I bet that's a plus to you.

Tom McClintock is the only pro life candidate.

20 years in politics and what has he done about his supposed pro-life beliefs?

He's the only pro 2nd Amendment candidate.

Again what has he done about his beliefs?

He's the most fiscally conservative, too.

He's also incapable of convincing others that a fiscally conservative policy is the best way to go.

I don't get it.

Here's a hint. McClintock is a career politician with zero accomplishments. He thinks he is some sort of genius on fiscal issues and doesn't give a rats ass about social issues other than to say what he is expected to say. In short, McClintock is a fast talking loser whose political record and political views don't match. Why should I vote for him?

hmmm. you sound like an embittered political insider. a member of arnold's campaign staff? instead of dumping on mcclintock, why don't you folks steal his thunder by being a little more open to the conservative grassroots - and standing a bit more steadfast on bedrock issues. would it kill arnold to promise not to raise taxes? unless he intends to -- a la pete wilson or warren buffett in his fantasies -- why won't he take the pledge?

Actually I'm a engineering student at Caltech who's sick and tired of reading all the "McClintock is our savior" posts. All I want to do is to bring some facts into the discussion.

As to why Arnold isn't promising the moon a la career politician McClintock maybe he thinks that politicians should keep their campaign promises and not just say them to get elected. But I guess Arnold is just naive. After all he doesn't have 20 years of experience like McClintock.

What a bizarre argument!? If the point is that California has gone down the tubes, why would you be looking for a candidate who had a hand in it? I would think we would be supporting the lone wolf who saw the writing on the wall for the last two decades.

McClintock may have seen the writing on the wall but he apparently lacked leadership ability to do anything about it. To be a good governor you have to be a good leader above all else. That includes the ability to convince people, to listen to people, and to compromise. These are qualitites that McClintock lacks.

And how did Arnold have do with the current fiscal situation except to express his desire to fix it?

He has her determination to revive what she called ``the vigorous virtues''-- entrepreneurship, deferral of gratification, individual initiative, personal responsibility in making appetites conform to resources. Together, these aptitudes can be called adulthood.

Let's analyze this shall we?

• Entrepreneurship: McClintock is a career politician and his sole source of income throughout his life has been the taxpayers of California. Arnold, OTOH, is a real entrepreneur who became a millionaire based on his business acumen.
• Deferral of gratification: McClintock is in this race not because he wants to fix California but because he (1) wants everyone bow down to his genius (2) wants to stick it to the state GOP and (3) wants the political power that he feels he so richly deserves. His campaign's complete fixation on taking Arnold down is just one indication of this.
• Individual initiative: McClintock only instance of this was a tax rebate act he co-sponsored in 1987 (with Gary Condit no less). He has done NOTHING since then.
• Personal responsibility in making appetites conform to resources: McClintock's idea of responsibility is "My way or the highway". If the majority of people choose the highway because I'm an arrogant, pompous fool well it's all their fault. Why should I bother taint my genius plan by compromising with those idiots? Let them drive California into ruin. I'm won't be responsible

You know I used to think that McClintock was an excellent but unkown candidate. However, after doing some research I have come to the conclusion that he is totally unsuited to be governor

In his whole legislative career, McClintock hasn't accomplished anything. Sure he's been a fiscal conservative (whatever that means) but his only concrete accomplishment according to the bio on his website was the Mello-Condit-McClintock Tax Rebate Act in 1987. That was 16 years ago. What has he done lately other than complaining and voting against state budgets?

Speaking of accomplishments, what exactly will McClintock do as governor? He seems to have four things in mind: 1. End the car tax 2. Void the energy contracts 3. Fix worker compensation 4. Cut funding to redundant agencies. Well everyone wants to end the car tax so he's welcome to join the party. 2 is totally unworkable because he can't just rip up a legally binding contract without spending years in lawsuits and risking the chance that utilities will simply cut off the power to California. 3 and 4 sound good but I can't see how he's going to it. Apparently, his plan of action is to tell the legislature "Do this or I'll complain about you to the public". Yeah, that's really going to work. More likely the state will end up totally in gridlock with everyone blaming everyone else.

Now a lot of people on this board (mostly out of state it seems) have fixated on McClintock's conservative social views regarding abortion, gun rights, gay rights etc. vs. Arnold's "liberal" views. However, what has McClintock done regarding these issues? Unlike Arnold he had 20 years in the legislature and he did absolutely nothing. How's that any better than Arnold?

Finally it seems that McClintock and his campaign are fixated upon Arnold. I have never heard, seen, or read him saying anything critical about Davis or Bustamante. It has always been "I'm gaining momentum, Arnold is an amateur, so vote for me instead of him". Why doesn't he mention Davis or Bustamante? Does he even care about them? Isn't he even going to try to get the support of moderates and independents? Is McClintock running a serious gubenatorial bid or is he just trying to spite the California GOP?

In essence, McClintock has accomplished nothing in 20 years other than talking and going on ego trips about how he knows everything and everyone else is an idiot for not listening to him. His idea of leadership is "Do this or I'll tell" and his plans to fix California are typical of a career politician - they sound good but are totally unworkable in practice. He says the "correct" things regarding certain social issues but it's clear that he hasn't and won't make a stand on them. Finally, even his motives about running for governor are questionable. Exactly why is he running this campaign?

Now contrast this with Arnold. Since his teenage years, Arnold has achieved everything he wanted to achieve. He wanted to be a world class body builder and he won the Mr. Universe a record six times. He wanted to be an actor and he's now one of the world's best known. He wanted to be a businessman and now he's raking in millions a year. When Arnold wanted to get into the politics with Prop. 49, he was successful by a wide margin. Now Arnold wants to be governor with the goal of fixing California. Given his track record as a doer and a winner vs. McClintock's track record of a talker and a loser (after all he lost every statewide election he's been in), who would you seriously vote for?

Who is short-sighted here? And who has vision?

A lack of vision can be corrected with time and experience. A 20-year record of fast talking and zero-leadership ability cannot. Talk about short-sightedness. Just because someone (especially a career politician) says what you want to hear doesn't mean they can or will do what you want them to do.

Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, is the fiscal conservative California desperately needs.

You know I used to think this was true but after doing some research I have come to the conclusion that McClintock is totally unsuited to be governor

In his whole legislative career, McClintock hasn't accomplished anything. Sure he's been a fiscal conservative (whatever that means) but his only concrete accomplishment according to the bio on his website was the Mello-Condit-McClintock Tax Rebate Act in 1987. That was 16 years ago. What has he done lately other than complaining and voting against state budgets?

Speaking of accomplishments, what exactly will McClintock do as governor? He seems to have four things in mind: 1. End the car tax 2. Void the energy contracts 3. Fix worker compensation 4. Cut funding to redundant agencies. Well everyone wants to end the car tax so join the party. 2 is totally unworkable because he can't just rip up a legally binding contract without spending years in lawsuits and risking the chance that utilities will simply cut off the power to California. 3 and 4 sound good but I can't see how he's going to it. Apparently, his plan of action is to tell the legislature "Do this or I'll complain about you to the public". Yeah, that's really going to work. More likely the state will end up totally in gridlock with everyone blaming everyone else.

Now a lot of people on this board (mostly out of state it seems) have fixated on McClintock's conservative social views regarding abortion, gun rights, gay rights etc. vs. Arnold's "liberal" views. However, what has McClintock done regarding these issues? Unlike Arnold he had 20 years in the legislature and he did absolutely nothing. How's that any better than Arnold?

Finally it seems that McClintock and his campaign are fixated upon Arnold. I have never heard, seen, or read him saying anything critical about Davis or Bustamante. It has always been "I'm gaining momentum, Arnold is an amateur, so vote for me instead of him". Why doesn't he mention Davis or Bustamante? Does he even care about them? Isn't he even going to try to get the support of moderates and independents? Is McClintock running a serious gubenatorial bid or is he just trying to spite the California GOP?

In essence, McClintock has accomplished nothing in 20 years other than talking and going on ego trips about how he knows everything and everyone else is an idiot for not listening to him. His idea of leadership is "Do this or I'll tell" and his plans to fix California are typical of a career politician - they sound good but are totally unworkable in practice. He says the "correct" things regarding certain social issues but it's clear that he hasn't and won't make a stand on them. Finally, even his motives about running for governor are questionable. Exactly why is he running this campaign?

Now contrast this with Arnold. Since his teenage years, Arnold has achieved everything he wanted to achieve. He wanted to be a world class body builder and he won the Mr. Universe a record six times. He wanted to be an actor and he's now one of the world's best known. He wanted to be a businessman and now he's raking in millions a year. When Arnold wanted to get into the politics with Prop. 49, he was successful by a wide margin. Now Arnold wants to be governor with the goal of fixing California. Given his track record as a doer and a winner vs. McClintock's track record of a talker and a loser (after all he lost every statewide election he's been in), who would you seriously vote for?

She believed the liberal propaganda that she was out there defending Palestinians from Jewish oppression. I don't think she realized what she was doing and in that sense I think her intentions (deluded as they may be) were innocent. I certainly don't believe that she is somehow the "enemy" and out to destroy this country as the other two responses to my post claim.

Maybe I'm not as hardline as some people on this forum seem to be but people like Rachel Cory should be educated and not run over by a bulldozer.

I don't see what the problem is. American interests don't coincide with Israeli interests. We want peace (or relative peace) in the Middle East to ensure the oil supply. What Israel wants is and should treated as a secondary consideration. Anyone in the government thinking otherwise should look in the mirror and ask themselves which country they owe their allegiance to.

I predict they'll trot out somebody to accuse him of sexual assault/rape. It's the only thing he hasn't been accused of.

And you think they don't have any dirt on McClintock? If Arnold drops out they'll start calling him anti-choice, anti-immigrant, etc. and end his campaign right then and there. Plus, McClintock doesn't have any money to run TV ads. When the media stops calling attention to his fiscal strengths, how's he going to get his message out?

Haha, so true.

The despairing part about the whole Israel situation is that there really is no other solution than genocide. Historically speaking when two different cultures meet one of two things happen: assimilation + intermariage or one group wiping out the other. I don't see Jews and Muslims getting married anytime soon so guess what's going to happen?

While you are at it, if a few stray missles take out some of those Rachel Cory types, the beers are on me.

That was a truly disgusting and frankly un-American comment. While Rachel Cory's idealism was misguided and her actions showed a lack of intelligence (or at least common sense) she nevertheless put her life on the line and gave it for something she believed in. You, OTOH are cheering her death just because you disagree with her.