Monday, April 23, 2007

Inconvenient Truths


A few weeks ago Mia Farrow wrote an open letter to Steven Spielberg asking him to speak out against the Chinese government for its support of Sudan. Turns out that Spielberg is a creative consultant for the Beijing Olympic Committee, made up in part by Chinese government officials, who officially have asked the U.N. to butt out of Darfur.
As a result of this, Mr. Spielberg did speak out, and weeks later, reports the Asia Times, "China is taking credit for its role in persuading the Sudanese government to accept an international peacekeeping force to stop the killings in Darfur and is determined to prevent further sanctions on a country in which it has massive investments."
Well la-dee-da.
China, as we all know, is nobody's friend. You know, once a snake always a snake? What strikes me about this news story is that someone as seemingly informed and sensitive as Steven Spielberg had to be shouted out publicly before he put one and one together regarding the dubious relationship between China and Sudan. Take Sudan out of the equation and you're still doing business with a dictatorship that still trades in intimidation and human rights violations.
But of course, the IOC (International Olympic Committee) isn't known for taking a stand against totalitarianism. Still, for leading "progressives" in our country to crawl into bed with China, even under the auspices of "art," is just disappointing. How weird that this story didn't get more play here in the States...if Elizabeth Hasselback from The View was working with the host committee of the Beijing games there'd be a mob outside ABC studios here in New York. Not that I'm a fan of Hasselback, I'm just calling out a blatant double standard.

14 comments:

Berdo said...

GCL -

I couldn't agree more. The media loves Spielberg. He's a Hollywood leftist...the only thing people like that get criticized for is their drug use and sex lives. Their politics are never in question because, to much of the media, they are on the right (read: Left) side of the political fence. For NBC, CBS, ABC, AP, Reuters, New York Times, Washington Post (shall I go on) that's all you need to know.

And you're right about Hasselbeck...she's on the right (read: wrong) side of the political fence. If she did anything of this magnitude, she'd be called out all over the place...and clearly, you know it.

That's why you see me rail on Al Sharpton. That's why you see me rail on Robert Byrd - a racist (former KKK Grand Wizard). I agreed with Trent Lott's political demise...I just think the standard should be the same for everyone.

James said...

This story makes me question how truly sincere politicians and prominent figures are when they speak out against all the injustices in the world. It's ok to condemn communism and scream about oppression but as long as the stadium and volley ball court are nice....we'll play with anyone. The whole thing is just a game.

James Henry Bailey said...

You can't be serious! You are surprised that a lefty is supportive of a repressive regime? Get a clue! That ship sailed with Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand and Susan Sarranwrap. Oh, and let's not forget Nanci Pelosi!!

Don't get me wrong- the Chinese Olympics (is it OK to say Chinese?) are a travesty, and Speilberg should be ashamed (fired?). But stop pissing your pants because a left-wing moonbat is more than happy to work with a repressive regime.

What about Joe Kennedy's deal with Chavez? What about Pelosi's "light Lunch" with Assad?

How about Harry Belafonte: "If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy-- you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!" (that was in 1984!)

Or when Jesse Jackson was in Havana, marching with Castro- the very man who abolished voting rights for blacks, under the penalty of death!

You might also want to check out how Charlie Rengal feels about Cuba.

ThatGayConservative said...

Still, for leading "progressives" in our country to crawl into bed with China, even under the auspices of "art," is just disappointing.

Guess who makes all the compact flourescent lightbulbs that the libs want to force us to use? Hint: Not a damn one of them is made in the US.

Just goes to show the libs will crawl into bed with China to push their own oppressive, socialist agenda. Do you seriously expect us to believe you give a sweet rat's ass about China?

Gene said...

Trade policies are capitalistic in nature. Capitalism will ultimately prevail in some form. Isn't that the right wing mantra? It works.

Berdo said...

TGC - Pat Robertson - one of the most abhorrent figures in our country - has made millions in China while posturing to the world about the country's human rights abuses (One-child policy) and general moral inversion. This is a man whose raison d'etre is to highlight his moral superiority, while he was privately capitalizing on doing business directly with the Chinese government. I submit this is far more a liberal thing to do than a conservative one, but with this post, it must be mentioned that one of the most visible right wing people in this country is 1,000 times worse in this regard than the subject of the post (Spielberg).

Gene - I think it's an interesting spin (and a faulty one) to discuss the liberal hypocrisy of Spielberg doing business in China and blame it on the "right wing." Clearly, it is NOT solely the province of the right wing. In fact, the right wing, with some exceptions (see above) is remarkably more direct about their intentions. The left wing gives you all this "feel good" bullshit, and does in private exactly what they publicly excoriate the right wing for. I think that's a far bigger issue, actually. Don't you?

Gene said...

There is no intention on my part to "blame" anyone for anything.

My point is that discussions of doing business with China have been supported, correctly, I believe, by all administrations, to one degree or another, since Mr. Nixon in the 1970's.

Capitalism is a very effective tool in establishing democracy, or republicanism, if you wish.

The more China becomes capitalistic, the more it will be willing to change its foreign policies to mesh with ours in order to continue, for the time being, at least, the trade balance with the U.S. which is very much in China's favor today.

(Was my support of the "right wing mantra"--"It works" too vague?)

Berdo said...

Gene -

I am not sure that capitalism will breed democracy all that quickly. I mean, China is awash with money. It functions as an autocracy with capitalistic elements. The country remains a massive human rights abuser, is relentlessly hostile toward Taiwan - which IS a functioning democracy, and has shown no sign of abating.

Capitalism is an American ideal, not a rightwing one. If ever anything highlighted the left's at least equal interest in capitalism, it's the endless of parade of hollywood leftists and other assorted hypocrites who preach quasi-socialist from a $10 million mansion wearing a $6,000 outfit. Why anyone belives this crap is beyond me.

ThatGayConservative said...

TGC - Pat Robertson - one of the most abhorrent

Blahblahblah. What? Did you think trashing Robertson would make me agree with you? And what does this have to do with my point?

Berdo said...

TGC -

You have got to be kidding. Your entire post calls out libs for crawling "into bed" with China and other oppressive regimes. I think Robertson - as a beacon of the religous right - doing more, worse, and for far longer, is worth mentioning. It's not just the libs.

China has provided both sides of the political fence with the opportunity to be moral perverts. I find Robertson, actually, the worst of them all in this regard.

Gene said...

John Edwards said something to the effect that he does, indeed, lead a lifestyle of some wealth, but he remembers the hard times of his youth.

Most of the people on the left who wear expensive suits came from families which could not afford those suits. These people worked for whatever fiscal rewards they have earned.

It's the American way.

FDR, Jay Rockefeller, the Kennedys all had wealth and spoke for the poor or disadvantaged. Were/are they, too, hypocritical?

How can we look into the heart of another if we only know that person through the filters of information which we have in place today?

ThatGayConservative said...

You have got to be kidding. I merely pointed out that the libs, who could give a sweet Jesus about human rights violations, are pissing and moaning about China who's manufacturing these bullshit, mercury filled light bulbs.

China has provided both sides of the political fence with the opportunity to be moral perverts.

What? Moral perverts? WTF?

Berdo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Berdo said...

Gene -

I have no problem with Democrats, Republicans or otherwise enjoying all that life has to offer off of their own good work. I DO have a serious problem with those, like Edwards, who admonish Americans for their luxurious excesses while living a life more luxurious and excessive than ANY of the people they criticize. It goes beyond hypocrisy - it's elitism ("YOU can't have these things but I can"). The left - from Edwards to Gore to Hollywood - is awash with people like this. I hope it bothers you too...I strongly believe it should.

TGC - this web grows ever more tangled. I agree with you about the libs - 100%. I find it equally upsetting that those who espouse religion and God and all that on the right have no problem profiting off a hideous regime like the one in China. I find it morally perverse for both the left and the right - resulting in the "moral perverts" line you don't like.

I give GCL a hard time - which I think is deserved, frankly - for frequently letting partisanship take precedence over objectivity. If this post is any indication, it seems you do the same thing.