The Revolutionary zeal returns, with Chairman Mao and other Revolutionary images returning to do battle with the evil CNN.
The New York Times today posted an article on just what my last post was. Take a look for yourself.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
China's Uncontrolable Nationalism
Every country has nationalists, some more than others. Some of those are extremists, some are more passive, but they are rarely centralized, controlled, or pushed by one entity. Nationalists in the US during the Civil War were led by charismatic ideologues, people who could 'talk real pretty' and incite emotions in the crowd based on what the speaker knew would spurn emotion. Modern extreme nationalists in the U.S. function more or less the same, but I'd say to a smaller degree. They have a target base group of people, and cater to that, generally not moving much from that base.
(What I am talking about are those movements in which the state in question is the supreme, and only worthwhile actor. All others are inferior. I am not referring to Nationalists like Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists, or movements that are moving for national independence. Both groups in the Chinese Civil war used Ethnic nationalism to push their causes. )
Previous large scale extreme Nationalist movements, specifically in World War II seemed to have more of an ethnic, rather than a national focus. They coincided with National borders for the most part, but remained ethnic.
This brings me to modern day China. I realize I'm skipping over and simplifying many many things, but my point is that nationalism today in China is ... different. It is controlled, but also not by the central government.
Look at what has been going on in Tibet. The Chinese media blames it on the Tibetans and the exiles. The rest of the world sees it a bit different.
From this, Chinese, and in particular youth, see the rest of the world's media, and people as 'Anti-China'. This, I am sure, was started by a subtle but planned push in the governments' central propaganda ministry, hoping to keep the foreign media information at bay from becoming believable to the Chinese people.
The scary thing, is that a little push has turned into something that needs to be quieted. Sites have popped up showing the 'falseness' of CNN.
Why is this unnerving? Simply because it acts like an avalanche, and if it is accidentally pushed too far chaos would erupt.
Friends of mine in China have started to add " <3 China" in front of their MSN name, to prove their solidarity with China. Even friends who know the media is manipulated, and hates talking about government have added the heart. The propaganda becomes so strong people join it without second thoughts. The Internet has been the main engine pushing the spread of this new resurgence of nationalism.
This is just to protest the protests along the Olympic Flame route against the Chinese government's actions in Tibet. Imagine what would happen if the nationalism went further in response to something bigger.
(What I am talking about are those movements in which the state in question is the supreme, and only worthwhile actor. All others are inferior. I am not referring to Nationalists like Chiang Kai-shek's nationalists, or movements that are moving for national independence. Both groups in the Chinese Civil war used Ethnic nationalism to push their causes. )
Previous large scale extreme Nationalist movements, specifically in World War II seemed to have more of an ethnic, rather than a national focus. They coincided with National borders for the most part, but remained ethnic.
This brings me to modern day China. I realize I'm skipping over and simplifying many many things, but my point is that nationalism today in China is ... different. It is controlled, but also not by the central government.
Look at what has been going on in Tibet. The Chinese media blames it on the Tibetans and the exiles. The rest of the world sees it a bit different.
From this, Chinese, and in particular youth, see the rest of the world's media, and people as 'Anti-China'. This, I am sure, was started by a subtle but planned push in the governments' central propaganda ministry, hoping to keep the foreign media information at bay from becoming believable to the Chinese people.
The scary thing, is that a little push has turned into something that needs to be quieted. Sites have popped up showing the 'falseness' of CNN.
Why is this unnerving? Simply because it acts like an avalanche, and if it is accidentally pushed too far chaos would erupt.
Friends of mine in China have started to add " <3 China" in front of their MSN name, to prove their solidarity with China. Even friends who know the media is manipulated, and hates talking about government have added the heart. The propaganda becomes so strong people join it without second thoughts. The Internet has been the main engine pushing the spread of this new resurgence of nationalism.
This is just to protest the protests along the Olympic Flame route against the Chinese government's actions in Tibet. Imagine what would happen if the nationalism went further in response to something bigger.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
If It was November 4, 2008 today... Red or Blue
Well, I was curious to see how this would all line up... So I decided that I'd tally up all the Pre-Super Tuesday Primaries and see who was coming out ahead, and what that might say for November. This is, of course, sloppy guesswork... but let's see.
Nevada Caucus:
Democratic Turnout: ~116,00 (Up from 2004's 9000)
Republican Turnout: ~44,000 (Up from previous highs of ~2-3000)
Result: The Democrats would probably win this state... Although, in 2004 the Dems also had higher #'s of people Caucusing... The state still went Red come November... This year's high numbers may make for a Blue state end result. 5 votes for Blue!
Florida:
Democratic Turnout: 1,684,390
Republican Turnout: 1,920,350
Result: Well... This was a primary that "didn't count" so says the Democratic Party... so its interesting that they are only tailing by a few hundred thousand votes... rather than a solid million. I'm sure there is a good number of people who didn't vote as a result of the general 'it doesn't matter, its not counted' apathy. So, on that point the state is still up for grabs... but we'll call it for Red again. Up 27 for Red.
South Carolina:
Democratic Turnout: 530,322
Republican Turnout: 442,918
Result: This one looks good for the Democrats... Blue State +8
Iowa:
Democratic Turnout: 220,588
Republican Turnout: ~114,000
Result: Same as Nevada. Both States had Democratic majorities for their primaries, but not by this much... Could forecast a change to Blue. Blue 7.
Michigan:
Democratic Turnout: 593,837
Republican Turnout: 842,565
Result: Well, this is another state that just "didn't count" for the Democratic Party. Since in both 2000 and 2004, this state went Blue... I don't foresee a change. But the Democratic leadership (as usual) are being idiotic concerning FL and MI; that's more than 40 electoral votes combined. Alienation is not a good strategy. They have months to pander to them, but first impressions count. On the border, but lets say Red. 17 on Red.
New Hampshire:
Democratic Turnout: 284,104
Republican Turnout: 233,381
Result: Surprise, surprise! Blue State. This state's republican primary does show how split the votes were...2 virtually tied for first at around 80,000 votes each, and then 3 competing for second, each around 20,000 votes. 4 electoral votes for Blue.
-------- Democratic Turnout:-------- Republican Turnout: --------
Maine: ---Feb. 10th ------------------------Romney--------
Wyoming: Coming March 8th --------...? =Romney?--------
Result: I can't find real numbers... just precinct data... so its anyone's guess. It is annoying that the numbers aren't published. I know roll is taken, so that data should be (and probably is...) uploaded to the state.
=================Vote Tally===================
---------------------Democratic: ---------Republican: -------
Nevada Caucus: ~116,000 -----------------~44,000
Florida: -------- 1,684,390-----------------1,920,350
South Carolina: 530,322 ------------------442,918
Iowa: ---------220,588-------------------114,000
Michigan:-----593,837--------------------842,565
New Hampshire: 284,104-----------------233,381
Total:-------- 3,429,241 ----------------3,597,214
Result: Republican Win. The Dem's need to Focus on MICHIGAN and FLORIDA!!! Voter Apathy could be the only reason for the Republican primary wins, but scorn may still last. Try to address this.
==============Electoral College==================
---------------- Democratic: --------Republican: --------
Nevada Caucus: --------5 ----------------0
Florida: ----------------0 ----------------27
South Carolina: --------8 ----------------0
Iowa: ------------------7 ----------------0
Michigan: -------------0 ----------------17
New Hampshire:------ 4 ----------------0
Total: ----------------24 ----------------44
As can be seen, Florida and Michigan count. A lot. Even by winning every other state, the Democrats still lose without one of them. This is only primary data, but it shows that some things need to be watched. It also shows that its not a good idea to give the finger to Florida and Michigan, and wander off. (Not that this will happen during real election time, but still, don't make enemies.)
Nevada Caucus:
Democratic Turnout: ~116,00 (Up from 2004's 9000)
Republican Turnout: ~44,000 (Up from previous highs of ~2-3000)
Result: The Democrats would probably win this state... Although, in 2004 the Dems also had higher #'s of people Caucusing... The state still went Red come November... This year's high numbers may make for a Blue state end result. 5 votes for Blue!
Florida:
Democratic Turnout: 1,684,390
Republican Turnout: 1,920,350
Result: Well... This was a primary that "didn't count" so says the Democratic Party... so its interesting that they are only tailing by a few hundred thousand votes... rather than a solid million. I'm sure there is a good number of people who didn't vote as a result of the general 'it doesn't matter, its not counted' apathy. So, on that point the state is still up for grabs... but we'll call it for Red again. Up 27 for Red.
South Carolina:
Democratic Turnout: 530,322
Republican Turnout: 442,918
Result: This one looks good for the Democrats... Blue State +8
Iowa:
Democratic Turnout: 220,588
Republican Turnout: ~114,000
Result: Same as Nevada. Both States had Democratic majorities for their primaries, but not by this much... Could forecast a change to Blue. Blue 7.
Michigan:
Democratic Turnout: 593,837
Republican Turnout: 842,565
Result: Well, this is another state that just "didn't count" for the Democratic Party. Since in both 2000 and 2004, this state went Blue... I don't foresee a change. But the Democratic leadership (as usual) are being idiotic concerning FL and MI; that's more than 40 electoral votes combined. Alienation is not a good strategy. They have months to pander to them, but first impressions count. On the border, but lets say Red. 17 on Red.
New Hampshire:
Democratic Turnout: 284,104
Republican Turnout: 233,381
Result: Surprise, surprise! Blue State. This state's republican primary does show how split the votes were...2 virtually tied for first at around 80,000 votes each, and then 3 competing for second, each around 20,000 votes. 4 electoral votes for Blue.
-------- Democratic Turnout:-------- Republican Turnout: --------
Maine: ---Feb. 10th ------------------------Romney--------
Wyoming: Coming March 8th --------...? =Romney?--------
Result: I can't find real numbers... just precinct data... so its anyone's guess. It is annoying that the numbers aren't published. I know roll is taken, so that data should be (and probably is...) uploaded to the state.
=================Vote Tally===================
---------------------Democratic: ---------Republican: -------
Nevada Caucus: ~116,000 -----------------~44,000
Florida: -------- 1,684,390-----------------1,920,350
South Carolina: 530,322 ------------------442,918
Iowa: ---------220,588-------------------114,000
Michigan:-----593,837--------------------842,565
New Hampshire: 284,104-----------------233,381
Total:-------- 3,429,241 ----------------3,597,214
Result: Republican Win. The Dem's need to Focus on MICHIGAN and FLORIDA!!! Voter Apathy could be the only reason for the Republican primary wins, but scorn may still last. Try to address this.
==============Electoral College==================
---------------- Democratic: --------Republican: --------
Nevada Caucus: --------5 ----------------0
Florida: ----------------0 ----------------27
South Carolina: --------8 ----------------0
Iowa: ------------------7 ----------------0
Michigan: -------------0 ----------------17
New Hampshire:------ 4 ----------------0
Total: ----------------24 ----------------44
As can be seen, Florida and Michigan count. A lot. Even by winning every other state, the Democrats still lose without one of them. This is only primary data, but it shows that some things need to be watched. It also shows that its not a good idea to give the finger to Florida and Michigan, and wander off. (Not that this will happen during real election time, but still, don't make enemies.)
Monday, January 21, 2008
This is a bit odd...
Okay. Yesterday brought with it the Nevada Caucus for both the Democrats and Republicans and South Carolina for just the Republicans.
First off, it continues to look more and more that the Republicans are in for a big mess come their convention... 3 for Romney (MI, WY, NV) 1 for Huckabee (IA) and 2 for McCain (SC, NH). So, its still up in the air and continuing to be split.
Now, on to the Democrats... Hillary won NH, but Obama had more Delegates... Hillary won NV, but Obama received more popular Delegates??
Obama has 13 popular delegates to Hillary's 12. But Hillary received 2 superdelegates to Obama's 1. So, although she won the popular vote... She tied with Obama overall, but lost to him in popular delegates...
First off, it continues to look more and more that the Republicans are in for a big mess come their convention... 3 for Romney (MI, WY, NV) 1 for Huckabee (IA) and 2 for McCain (SC, NH). So, its still up in the air and continuing to be split.
Now, on to the Democrats... Hillary won NH, but Obama had more Delegates... Hillary won NV, but Obama received more popular Delegates??
Obama has 13 popular delegates to Hillary's 12. But Hillary received 2 superdelegates to Obama's 1. So, although she won the popular vote... She tied with Obama overall, but lost to him in popular delegates...
Friday, January 18, 2008
8cm Tiny Fiery Instruments of Death
It appears that in the near future certain groups in Japan hope to launch a paper (probably not paper... definitely something stronger and less... flammable...) airplane from the ISS to Earth.
Here is the original Japanese if you can read it.
Here's what, as far as I can tell, is the first English post on the topic.
This seems interesting.. and I am very VERY interested in hearing about a paper plane that can withstand Mach 1 intact, let alone Mach 20... Also, What about the speed this things going to build up on reentry? If it hits a building? "Paper plane devastates Down-Town New York City" would make a catchy and humorous title, more fitting of the Onion than the New York Times.
Here is the original Japanese if you can read it.
Here's what, as far as I can tell, is the first English post on the topic.
This seems interesting.. and I am very VERY interested in hearing about a paper plane that can withstand Mach 1 intact, let alone Mach 20... Also, What about the speed this things going to build up on reentry? If it hits a building? "Paper plane devastates Down-Town New York City" would make a catchy and humorous title, more fitting of the Onion than the New York Times.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
New Hampshire Primary
Well, the Primary has been called for Hillary and McCain. On the whole this doesn't really mean a whole lot.
Why? First, Its state #2 (#3 for Republicans). Meaning there's time left for many changes and victories.
There is also another way to see the Primary for both parties. By a tally of the Delegates, Obama won. Why? Super-delegates. Those already decided minds in the DNC that have been appointed and can decide their mind ahead of time. Hillary had 2, Obama 3. What does this mean and why do I bother to mention it? It evens out at Hillary 11, Obama 12.
Most of Hillary's supporters were women, Exit Polls say 57%, most of which were over 40. Also, oddly enough, of those (37%) who would support Bill Clinton for re-election , 57% of those are Hillary supporters... Now tell me that they aren't hoping for a new Clinton Administration... See here
Looking to the Republicans: A nice clusterf@#% is on its way if things keep going this way. Huckabee for Iowa, McCain for New Hampshire, and Mitt Romney for Wyoming. If it continues this way, the fight may not be over by the Convention... Maybe not even after...
It's still anyone's game.
Why? First, Its state #2 (#3 for Republicans). Meaning there's time left for many changes and victories.
There is also another way to see the Primary for both parties. By a tally of the Delegates, Obama won. Why? Super-delegates. Those already decided minds in the DNC that have been appointed and can decide their mind ahead of time. Hillary had 2, Obama 3. What does this mean and why do I bother to mention it? It evens out at Hillary 11, Obama 12.
Most of Hillary's supporters were women, Exit Polls say 57%, most of which were over 40. Also, oddly enough, of those (37%) who would support Bill Clinton for re-election , 57% of those are Hillary supporters... Now tell me that they aren't hoping for a new Clinton Administration... See here
Looking to the Republicans: A nice clusterf@#% is on its way if things keep going this way. Huckabee for Iowa, McCain for New Hampshire, and Mitt Romney for Wyoming. If it continues this way, the fight may not be over by the Convention... Maybe not even after...
It's still anyone's game.
After Iowa, Before New Hampshire.
As the results rolled in on the evening of the Caucus, Obama and Huckabee became the proclaimed leaders. Obama I had expected and personally caucused for, but Huckabee I had rarely even heard about save side articles about his ... interesting views and past behavior (probably some in the realm of conspiracy).
Now,when Huckabee won, I was not alone in wondering how and why. I had no idea he was that popular. Well, the pundits and their friends decided it was because of Iowa's large Evangelical population.
Wait, What? I've lived here for quite a while and have never really noticed that strong of an Evangelical community. I went to a predominately white public grade and middle school, and then to a Catholic High School. Even in the public schools I knew more Catholics and agnostic/atheists... Quite a few Lutherans too, but are they really 'evangelical'?
I only know of a few real evangelicals...
My take on all of this is that the Reporters that be couldn't figure out what happened, so they went with the best guess they had: Evangelism. I think it might be the overall repitition of the word 'Change.'
We'll see how this plays out tonight in New Hampshire in a few hours. Putting Guiliani's continued repitition of "9/11" with Hillary's Tears and the Obama (and Edwards and Huckabee) vague message of 'Change.'
Let's see how this plays out.
Now,when Huckabee won, I was not alone in wondering how and why. I had no idea he was that popular. Well, the pundits and their friends decided it was because of Iowa's large Evangelical population.
Wait, What? I've lived here for quite a while and have never really noticed that strong of an Evangelical community. I went to a predominately white public grade and middle school, and then to a Catholic High School. Even in the public schools I knew more Catholics and agnostic/atheists... Quite a few Lutherans too, but are they really 'evangelical'?
I only know of a few real evangelicals...
My take on all of this is that the Reporters that be couldn't figure out what happened, so they went with the best guess they had: Evangelism. I think it might be the overall repitition of the word 'Change.'
We'll see how this plays out tonight in New Hampshire in a few hours. Putting Guiliani's continued repitition of "9/11" with Hillary's Tears and the Obama (and Edwards and Huckabee) vague message of 'Change.'
Let's see how this plays out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)